2018 Ohio 4601
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Kenneth Dabney and his then-wife Denise owned a Shaker Heights home; Denise applied to refinance with Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo hired Metro Appraisal Group to appraise the property.
- Metro performed appraisals on July 23, 2015 for Wells Fargo; Metro identified Wells Fargo as the lender/intended user on all reports.
- Dabney had minimal contact with Metro (met the appraiser during the July 23 visit) but paid $500 to Wells Fargo for an appraisal and later received an appraisal that mistakenly listed him as "Borrower/Client."
- Dabney sued Metro (pro se) alleging breach of contract, negligence, falsification of documents, and violations of appraisal industry standards (USPAP), claiming Metro’s conduct caused him to lose his refinancing opportunity and ownership of the home.
- Metro moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing no privity or duty to Dabney and that claims were time-barred; the trial court granted dismissal and Dabney appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of contract | Dabney argued he was a Borrower/Client on an appraisal report and thus had a contractual relationship with Metro | Metro argued no oral or written contract existed with Dabney; appraisals were for Wells Fargo only | Held: No contract; appraisals were not contracts and complaint admits no agreement with Metro |
| Duty in negligence claim | Dabney argued a duty existed (or contractual duty existed) because he was an intended user per USPAP/listing on report | Metro argued it owed duty only to Wells Fargo, not to Dabney, and there was no relationship creating a duty | Held: No duty owed to Dabney; negligence claim fails for lack of relationship/duty |
| Reliance on USPAP to create duties/intended-user status | Dabney relied on USPAP definition of "intended user" to show he was an intended user and owed duties | Metro pointed to appraisal language expressly naming only the lender as intended user and excluding additional intended users | Held: USPAP reliance misplaced; reports explicitly identify only Wells Fargo as intended user |
| Statute of limitations | Dabney argued longer statutes (4- or 5-year) might apply | Metro argued two-year R.C. 2305.10(A) barred claims | Held: Court did not reach merits of statutes because claims fail on their face; dismissal affirmed on pleading grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 814 N.E.2d 44 (Ohio 2004) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) explained)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 849 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2006) (plaintiff must show set of facts entitling relief to survive dismissal)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 327 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1975) (same pleading standard for motions to dismiss)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 693 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio 1998) (elements of negligence claim described)