Carbone v. Nueva Constr. Group, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 382
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- SCG hired Nueva as a subcontractor on two projects: a Xenia school project (the “Xenia Subcontract”) and a proposed Johnson Court hotel development; parties dispute payments and performance.
- SCG alleged Nueva was paid approximately $85,000 and did not perform services; several requests for admission by SCG went unanswered and were deemed admitted at trial.
- Defendants (Nueva and related parties) did not appear to present evidence at the bench trial after multiple continuance requests were denied; SCG presented a single witness and relied on deemed admissions and trial testimony.
- Nueva later submitted unauthenticated documentary exhibits in a post-trial brief and in a motion for sanctions; the trial court and this court excluded/declined to consider that belated, unauthenticated evidence.
- The trial court entered judgment for Nueva on all claims; SCG appealed as to manifest weight/ sufficiency, and Nueva cross-appealed the denial of its sanctions motion claiming the complaint was frivolous.
- The appellate court affirmed: it found SCG failed to prove all elements of breach of contract (particularly linking the $85,000 and nonperformance to the Xenia Subcontract) and that Nueva’s motion for sanctions was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against manifest weight of the evidence | Carbone/SCG: unanswered admissions + single witness proved breach and damages | Nueva: trial testimony and admissions insufficient; unauthenticated post-trial docs irrelevant | Affirmed — trier of fact did not clearly lose its way; SCG failed to prove all contract elements |
| Whether unanswered requests for admission established breach re: Xenia Subcontract | SCG: admissions show Nueva was paid ~$85,000 and did not perform, proving breach/damages | Nueva: admissions were unclear as to which agreement and lacked linkage to Xenia contract | Held — admissions did not establish all elements for Xenia breach; only showed a possible damage amount |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives where an express contract exists | SCG: alternative unjust enrichment claim based on admissions | Nueva: existence of an express/ enforceable contract precludes unjust enrichment remedy | Held — unjust enrichment unavailable because parties had an enforceable contract |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Nueva’s motion for sanctions for frivolous complaint | Nueva: complaint frivolous based on documents showing lack of merit | SCG: documents were untimely and unauthenticated; summary-judgment record previously created factual disputes | Held — denial affirmed; evidence relied on by Nueva was not timely/authenticated and prior summary-judgment denials showed genuine factual issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standards for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (discussing manifest-weight analysis)
- Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265, 2009-Ohio-2524, 910 N.E.2d 1009 (Ohio 2009) (deference to trier of fact’s credibility assessments)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trier-of-fact advantage from observing witnesses)
- Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291, 2007-Ohio-4918, 874 N.E.2d 1198 (Ohio 2007) (affirm where verdict supported by competent credible evidence)
- Textron Fin. Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 137 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (elements of a breach of contract claim)
- Garofalo v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (breach-of-contract element discussion)
- State ex rel. Davis v. Metzger, 145 Ohio St.3d 405, 2016-Ohio-1026, 49 N.E.3d 1293 (Ohio 2016) (standards for awarding sanctions under R.C. 2323.51)