Columbia Dev. Corp. v. Krohn
2014 Ohio 5607
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Columbia Development Corp is the titleholder and ground landlord; NNN 250 East Fifth Street, LLC is the current ground tenant under a 1982 Ground Lease governing signage and building rights.
- The Ground Lease allows NNN and subtenants to install signage on the Building subject to applicable regulations and laws.
- In 2005, NNN leased to Deloitte, giving Deloitte exclusive signage rights; in 2011 a Letter Agreement preserved Deloitte's rights in connection with Nielsen's later sign and included a Rent Credit Provision.
- In 2012 Nielsen sought and received a Notwithstanding Ordinance to erect a sign, with Nielsen and NNN pursuing signage under Cincinnati Zoning Code §1411-39(f).
- Columbia filed Nielsen Injunction Motion seeking to restrain Nielsen’s sign; the trial court denied the motion on June 18, 2012, and later denied the Deloitte Injunction Motion on December 10, 2012, after ownership questions were addressed.
- On May 17, 2012, Deloitte joined the case; on December 9, 2013, the trial court granted Columbia summary judgment on NNN's tortious interference claim, ruling Columbia's actions were not intended to procure Deloitte's breach and were justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Columbia intentionally procure Deloitte's contract breach with NNN? | NNN: Columbia's actions show intent to cause breach of Deloitte nor to justify | Columbia: actions were efforts to enforce perceived rights under the Ground Lease and zoning laws, not to cause breach | No genuine issue; Columbia's actions not shown to be intentional procurement |
| Were Columbia's actions legally justified or privileged? | NNN: actions were not legally justified given the clear sign rights in leases | Columbia acted in good faith to protect its perceived legal rights | Actions privileged and justified |
| Was Mr. Joseph's deposition testimony properly includable in evaluating the tort claim? | NNN: deposition shows intent to procure breach and should be considered | Deposition was taken before relevant leases were disclosed and should not establish intent | Deposition properly considered only as supportive, not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2012- Ohio-3911 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110836 (2012)) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995) (need knowledge of contract to support liability)
- Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195 (9th Dist.1996) (intent required to procure breach)
- Akron Group Services, Inc. v. Patron Plastics, Inc., 2005-Ohio-5101 (9th Dist. Summit No. 22507 (2005)) (knowledge of contract as element of tort)
- N. Coast Engines, Inc. v. Hercules Engine Co., 2008-Ohio-793 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89091 (2008)) (awareness of contract required for tortious interference)
- GZK, Inc. v. Schumaker Partnership, 2008-Ohio-1980 (2d Dist. Ohio) (distinguishes fact patterns where litigation actions create material issues)