Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Choice Title Agency, Inc.
2012 Ohio 2824
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Maruna misappropriated funds from Choice Title; Commonwealth paid $116,060.26 to seller after Choice Title’s check bounced.
- Marunas’ divorce led to a property division; Ms. Maruna quitclaimed three properties to Mr. Maruna.
- Commonwealth sued Choice Title and Ms. Maruna for fraud, theft-related acts, and sought to pierce the corporate veil.
- Trial court granted some summary judgments: against Mr. Maruna on some grounds, and against Ms. Maruna/Choice Title on others.
- Court of Appeals reversed in part: held transfers from Ms. Maruna to Mr. Maruna were fraudulent transfers under R.C. 1336.04 and 1336.07, and remanded for appropriate remedies.
- Court addressed treble damages under R.C. 2307.61 and election rights; remand to determine proper remedies and applicable damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent transfer under 1336.04(A)(1) | Commonwealth asserted transfers were made with actual intent to defraud. | Maruna contended no transfer occurred through divorce settlement. | Transfer constituted fraudulent under 1336.04(A)(1) and proper remedy to be determined. |
| Fraudulent transfer under 1336.04(A)(2) | Transfers lacked reasonably equivalent value and rendered insolvent. | Maruna claimed value exchanges and no insolvency at transfer. | Summary judgment warranted for Commonwealth on 1336.04(A)(2) defenses; dispositive on this record. |
| Fraudulent transfer under 1336.05 | Transfers without reasonably equivalent value and debtor insolvent. | Divorce settlement cannot defeat the deed transfers. | Not necessary to address separately due to 1336.04 findings; transfers still fraudulent. |
| Remedies and foreclosure rights | Treble damages and execution remedies should be available. | Remedies to be determined by court. | Remand to fashion appropriate remedy in light of fraudulent conveyance finding; treble damages issues sustained. |
| Treble damages under 2307.61 | Election to recover treble damages should control. | Election/notice requirements may affect amount. | Plaintiff’s election controls; court erred by not giving effect to treble damages election; remand for remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment standard; de novo review when appropriate)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; evidentiary review on Civ.R. 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (material facts; genuine issue for trial standard)
- Ford v. Star Bank, N.A., 1998 WL 553003 (Ohio 1998) (caveats on defenses under R.C. 1336.08)
- X-Technology, Inc. v. MJ Technologies, — (Ohio 2002) (election of remedies under R.C. 2307.61)