Davis v. Meyers
2012 Ohio 1518
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Davis sought to purchase the northern portion of Meyers’s 3.84-acre tract divided by US Route 30.
- The General Agreement described the parties’ deal but omitted the conveyed interest and essential terms.
- The handwritten terms set a purchase price and allocated some costs, but the form did not specify the nature of the interest to be conveyed.
- Meyers’s property was encumbered by a Wells Fargo mortgage, which Davis did not know about at signing.
- Closing attempts failed because Wells Fargo would not grant a partial release; Davis incurred survey and appraisal expenses and pursued litigation for breach of contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract complied with the Statute of Frauds. | Davis contends the writing identified the subject matter and essential terms. | Meyers argues the agreement is deficient for failing to specify the interest conveyed. | Sustained; writing identified property and essential terms, satisfying the Statute of Frauds. |
| Whether the contract must state the nature of the interest to be conveyed. | The contract need not detail the type of title; identify the property suffices. | The form should specify the nature of the conveyance. | Sustained; Statute of Frauds does not require the interest type to be described. |
| Whether the duty to obtain a mortgage release was an essential term. | Duty to obtain a release could be implied or waived. | The duty to obtain a release was essential and must be in writing. | Sustained; not a required essential term under the contract for Statute of Frauds purposes. |
| Whether nonperformance because of a third party excuses performance. | Nonperformance due to Wells Fargo’s refusal cannot bar a contract. | Nonperformance defense exists if third-party action prevents performance. | Ripe for review; third Assignment of Error sustained; remand to assess breach and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGee v. Tobin, 2005-Ohio-2119 (7th Dist. 2005) (Statute of Frauds; valid identification of property suffices; essential terms need not be exhaustive)
- Sanders v. McNutt, 147 Ohio St. 408 (1947) (Statute of Frauds allows varying forms of identification of land subject matter)
- Schmidt v. Weston, 150 Ohio St. 293 (1948) (Property description suffices if it enables certainty of identification)
- McCarty v. Lingham, 111 Ohio St. 551 (1924) (Marketable title requirements and implied conveyance standards under general terms)
- Dynes Corp. v. Seikel, Koly & Co., Inc., 100 Ohio App.3d 620 (8th Dist. 1994) (Nonperformance defense when other party prevents performance)