Carpenter v. Long
196 Ohio App. 3d 376
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Anna Carpenter and Richard D. Arthur and Chanin L. Clymer filed notices of appeal challenging Greene County court entries adopting magistrate decisions on cross-motions for summary judgment related to a cell-tower rental income dispute.
- Carpenter alleged negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, negligence, and respondeat superior liability against Long and Big Hill Realty (dba Big Hill GMAC Real Estate) in sale of 1955 Old North Fairfield Rd, Beavercreek, with a prior interpleader action involving Cincinnati Bell Wireless.
- In 2006, as part of the real estate sale to Stoneridge, related documents (Assumption Agreement, Assignment of Lease, Assignment of Rent Payments) were executed but not recorded, with Long allegedly assuring Carpenter her rental-income rights were protected.
- Cincinnati Bell Wireless stopped paying rentals in 2006; an interpleader action determined distribution of rental income, placing Carpenter and Arthur/Clymer in dispute over who would receive future payments.
- Magistrate’s revised decision held non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel applied, barring plaintiffs’ claims, a ruling adopted by the trial court on December 20, 2010, which Carpenter and Arthur/Clymer challenged on appeal.
- On appeal, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding res judicata did not bar Carpenter or Arthur/Clymer; the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred Carpenter and Arthur/Clymer claims | Carpenter: res judicata incorrectly applied; prior interpleader did not adjudicate relevant negligence | Long/Big Hill: Hoover framework permits collateral estoppel despite nonmutuality; prior judgment precludes related issues | Res judicata not applicable to bar claims; reversal and remand warranted |
| Whether Carpenter can establish duty and negligent-misrepresentation against Long/Big Hill | Long/Big Hill breached fiduciary and duty by failing to protect rental income and by misrepresenting protection of rights | No duty to protect personal property rental income; omissions cannot support misrepresentation; statute of limitations defenses | Genuine issues of material fact on duty and misrepresentation; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Carpenter's professional-negligence claim is time-barred | Professional negligence falls under applicable statute (R.C. 2305.09(D)); not time-barred | Statute of limitations applicable under R.C. 2305.11; limitations defense | Not time-barred; summary judgment improper on statute-of-limitations basis |
| Whether Arthur and Clymer have viable claims given payment allocation and estoppel theories | Arthur/Clymer seek damages tied to rental income; prior interpleader allocation does not bar their negligence claims | Contract terms and equitable estoppel bar recovery; prior allocations and records control outcomes | Facts raise genuine issues; summary-judgment denial appropriate; remand for proceedings |
| Whether Stoneridge is entitled to summary judgment on its cross-claims and related defenses | Stoneridge breached contract by not excluding rental income from sale; estoppel and notice defenses contested | Stoneridge complied with contract; no valid breach or damages; equitable estoppel applies | Summary judgment improper; remand required for full proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoover v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 2004-Ohio-72 (Greene App. No. 2003-CA-46, 2004-Ohio-72) (non-mutual collateral estoppel allowed when party had day in court)
- Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193 (1983) (mutuality relaxed under narrow exception for fully litigated issues)
- Hicks v. De La Cruz, 52 Ohio St.2d 71 (1977) (exception to mutuality for certain preclusion under due process)
- Davis v. Public Emps. Retirement Bd., 2008-Ohio-6254 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (actual-litigation requirement for collateral estoppel)
- McCrory v. Children’s Hospital, 28 Ohio App.3d 49 (1986) (exception location for collateral estoppel in some contexts)
- Four Howards, Ltd. v. J & F Wenz Rd Invest, L.L.C., 179 Ohio App.3d 399 (2008) (constructive knowledge and recording issues in real estate)
- Schloss v. Brown, 13 Ohio App.3d 294 (1984) (actual knowledge required for unrecorded interests binding purchaser)
- Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v. Busch, 2011-Ohio-1125 (Greene App. No. 2010 CA 51) (res judicata/privity limits on nonparty claim preclusion)
- Rieger v. Montgomery Cty., 2009-Ohio-4125 (Montgomery App. No. 23145, 23162) (limits of collateral estoppel when prior action does not present identical issue)
- New Winchester Gardens, Ltd. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 36 (2007) (threading test for collateral estoppel in Ohio)
- Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (standard for collateral estoppel applicability in Ohio)