Csizmadia v. Gilkey
2021 Ohio 2760
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Dispute over two parcels on State Route 60 in Morgan County formerly subject to a 2001 land contract from appellants (Gilkeys) to Russell Farley; Kimberly had earlier executed a mortgage in 1999.
- Gilkeys filed bankruptcy in 2009 listing the property; the property was not surrendered and Kimberly remained liable on the promissory note.
- Appellee Csizmadia and Harold Tucker lived on the property and agreed with Farley in 2011 that if they paid the mortgage he would convey the property to them.
- Csizmadia and Tucker paid the mortgage (2011–2015) and obtained a Release and Satisfaction; Gilkeys did not pay taxes after 2011 and, upon learning of the release, attempted to retake possession.
- Gilkeys filed forcible entry actions, later dismissed; Csizmadia sued for quiet title, injunction, conversion, declaratory relief; after bench trial the trial court declared Csizmadia owner.
- Gilkeys appealed claiming the assignment violated the Statute of Frauds, breached an anti-assignment clause in the land contract, and that there was no privity between Gilkeys and Csizmadia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of Farley’s alleged assignment to Csizmadia | Csizmadia: Gilkeys are not parties to the Farley–Csizmadia agreement and therefore cannot invoke the Statute of Frauds | Gilkeys: The assignment was oral/unsigned and thus unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds | Court: Statute of Frauds is a personal defense; nonparties (Gilkeys) cannot assert it to defeat the assignment |
| Whether an anti-assignment clause/privity prevents Csizmadia from obtaining title | Csizmadia: Even if Farley assigned, Gilkeys suffered no damage and cannot prevail | Gilkeys: The land contract forbids assignment; Farley’s transfer to Csizmadia breached the contract and Csizmadia lacks privity | Court: Even assuming breach, Gilkeys did not show damage; anti-assignment defense does not entitle them to relief, so quiet title was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Inks, 7 N.E.3d 1150 (Ohio 2014) (statute of frauds bars enforcement of unwritten land-sale agreements)
- Blain's Folding Serv., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 109 N.E.3d 177 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (nonparties lack standing to assert statute-of-frauds defense)
- Legros v. Tarr, 540 N.E.2d 257 (Ohio 1989) (statute-of-frauds defenses are personal to parties)
- Texeramics Corp. v. United States, 239 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1957) (third parties cannot avail themselves of statute-of-frauds defense)
- Munoz v. Flower Hosp., 507 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (elements required to recover for breach of contract and need to prove damages)
- Rasnick v. Tubbs, 710 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (expectation damages standard for contract breaches)