Church at Warren v. Warzala
2017 Ohio 6947
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Church at Warren hired contractor Rick Warzala to coat a leaking church roof with Mule-Hide A-300 purchased from ABC Supply; the coating failed and interior damage followed.
- Church at Warren sued (Feb. 2015) Warzala, ABC Supply, and Mule-Hide for negligence and breach of warranty seeking > $25,000.
- Church had been an incorporated nonprofit but its articles were cancelled by the Ohio Secretary of State in 2005.
- ABC and Mule-Hide moved for summary judgment arguing Church lacked legal capacity/standing and that its tort and warranty claims failed as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the Church lacked capacity to sue because it was no longer incorporated and was exempt from R.C. 1745.08 as a religious organization; judgment was entered in favor of Warzala as well.
- The court of appeals affirmed, finding the capacity defense properly considered (implied consent), R.C. 1745.05(M)(5) excludes religious organizations from unincorporated nonprofit status, and the Church failed to create a genuine factual dispute about its capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has capacity to sue because its articles were cancelled | Church: though incorporation was cancelled, it qualifies as an unincorporated nonprofit association under R.C. 1745.08 and thus has capacity | Defendants: cancellation of articles means no capacity to sue; religious orgs are excluded from R.C. 1745.08 so Church cannot claim entity status | Held: Church lacks capacity; R.C. 1745.05(M)(5) excludes religious organizations and plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence creating a factual dispute |
| Whether defendants waived the capacity defense by not pleading it | Church: capacity is affirmative defense and defendants waived it by not asserting in their answers | Defendants: defense may be raised in summary judgment and was effectively pleaded by motion; trial court could consider it because parties tried the issue (implied consent) | Held: No waiver; implied consent existed because plaintiff responded to the capacity argument and submitted evidence; raising it in summary judgment was permissible |
| Whether plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment | Church: pastor’s affidavit asserted Church operated under R.C. 1745.08 | Defendants: affidavit is a legal conclusion, contradicted deposition testimony, and fails Civ.R. 56(E) requirements | Held: Affidavit insufficient (legal conclusion, contradicted deposition); no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether lack of capacity/standing defeats claims against all defendants including Warzala | Church: capacity/standing issues should not bar claims against Warzala where he didn’t join the summary-judgment motion | Defendants: capacity is global—if plaintiff lacks capacity it cannot pursue claims against any defendant | Held: Because Church lacks capacity to sue, its claims against Warzala also fail; judgment for Warzala affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s initial summary-judgment burden)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (reciprocal burdens on summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Brown v. County Comm'rs of Scioto County, 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (appellate review standard)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (distinguishing standing from subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Dennis v. Ford Motor Co., 121 Ohio App.3d 318 (capacity vs. standing distinction)