DeBlasio v. Sinclair
2012 Ohio 5848
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Al Rhodes, personal representative of the DiBlasio estate, asserts UFTA claims against Sinclair and related entities.
- Sinclair used multiple entities (Newport Investments, LLC; Newport Development, Inc.) to acquire and transfer investment properties.
- Seven Mahoning County properties were acquired in Sinclair’s name, then transferred to Newport Investments, LLC without apparent consideration.
- 104 Newport Drive was encumbered by liens exceeding its value, affecting its status as an asset under UFTA.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on the UFTA claims; other claims remained for trial; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of summary judgment on UFTA claims | DiBlasio seeks broader relief beyond UFTA claims | Judgment limited to UFTA claims only | Partially affirmed; scope clarified, remanded for related claims |
| Seven properties—are transfers actionable under UFTA | Transfers were fraudulent and voidable | Transfers made by agency for Newport Investments; no direct liability | Genuine issues of material fact exist; remanded for trial on transfers under UFTA |
| Is 104 Newport Drive an asset under UFTA | Property is an asset despite liens | Liens exceed value; not an asset under UFTA | Not an asset; affirmed as to 104 Newport Drive under UFTA |
| Pleading sufficiency of civil conspiracy and veil-piercing | Amended complaint supports conspiracy and veil-piercing | Claims not clearly pleaded in amended complaint | Sufficient pleading possible; remand to address merits of conspiracy/veil claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden on moving party in summary judgment; Dresher standard)
- York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (notice-pleading requirements; Civ.R. 8(A))
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (evidentiary view in summary judgment context)
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners’ Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 1993) (piercing corporate veil standard)
- Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284 (Ohio 1993) (civil conspiracy elements)
- Dunn v. Westlake, 61 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1991) (agency/partner liability for principal)
- Stein v. Brown, 18 Ohio St.3d 305 (Ohio 1985) (inference of actual fraud from circumstantial evidence)
- Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598 (Ohio 1995) (summary judgment standards; material facts)