2024 Ohio 306
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Bishop Victor S. Couzens sued Union Bank & Trust Co. alleging the bank improperly encouraged members of Inspirational Bible Church (IBC) to terminate his employment as IBC’s senior pastor so the church could continue doing business with the bank.
- In 2015, IBC secured a $5.1 million loan from Union Bank, later modified in 2017 to lower payments after IBC’s revenues and membership significantly declined.
- By 2019, IBC defaulted on the loan, entered a forbearance agreement, and Couzens was largely absent from negotiations with the bank after hiring an executive pastor.
- Union Bank conditioned further loan negotiations on Couzens’s removal from IBC; shortly thereafter, IBC members voted to remove him.
- Couzens alleged tortious interference with contract and business relations, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Union Bank, finding its actions justified. Couzens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with contract | Bank unjustifiably procured breach of Couzens’s employment contract | Bank’s actions were justified to protect financial interest | Bank justified; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Tortious interference with business | Bank improperly induced IBC to sever prospective business relation | Justified by need to ensure repayment of loan | Same standard as contract; bank’s actions justified |
| Civil conspiracy | Genuine issues of fact remain regarding bank’s concerted conduct | No underlying tort, so no viable conspiracy claim | No underlying tort; conspiracy claim must fail |
| Summary judgment | Summary judgment improper due to factual disputes | No genuine dispute on material facts | Affirmed grant of summary judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (sets forth elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio Supreme Court’s adoption of Restatement factors for justification)
- Alexander v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2012-Ohio-3911 (recites elements and standards for tortious interference claims)