2020 Ohio 2771
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff George S. Drew (individual) sued Weather Stop Roofing Co., LLC and its principal Gary Hamm for breach of contract, breach of warranties, breach of a "lifetime guarantee," punitive damages, and sought to pierce the corporate veil.
- The farmhouse and property at issue were owned by New Fairview Farm, LLC, an LLC of which Drew is the sole member; Drew himself was not the titled owner.
- The roofing contract was signed by Drew's now-deceased father, George R. Drew; George S. Drew did not sign the contract and was not a named party.
- Defendants pleaded that Drew was not the real party in interest and moved for summary judgment, arguing Drew lacked standing because he was neither a party to the contract nor the property owner.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Drew had no ownership interest, was not in privity with Weather Stop, was not an intended third-party beneficiary, and had no proof of assignment of any contract rights.
- The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Drew lacked standing to sue because he had no personal stake in the outcome (not party, not owner, no assignment, and only an incidental beneficiary).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / real party in interest to enforce contract | Drew claimed personal right to enforce the roofing contract and recover for damages to the property. | Weather Stop/Hamm argued Drew lacked standing because he neither owned the property nor was a party to the contract. | Court: Drew lacked standing; not the real party in interest. |
| Privity / party to the contract | Drew asserted he had authorized his father to contract (arguable agency) or otherwise had rights to enforce. | Defendants pointed out Drew never signed the contract; his father (now deceased) signed it. | Court: Drew not a signatory and not in privity with Weather Stop. |
| Third-party beneficiary status | Drew implied he had beneficiary rights from the contract for work on the property. | Defendants contended any intended beneficiary would be the property owner (New Fairview Farm, LLC), not Drew personally. | Court: Drew at best an incidental beneficiary; not an intended third-party beneficiary. |
| Assignment of contract rights | Drew claimed in an affidavit that he had been assigned all rights to bring the claims. | Defendants argued the affidavit was self-serving and uncorroborated; no documentary assignment exists. | Court: No evidence of assignment; affidavit insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Sonitrol of Sw. Ohio, 36 Ohio St.3d 36 (1988) (distinguishes intended third-party beneficiaries from incidental beneficiaries)
- State ex rel. Botkins v. Laws, 69 Ohio St.3d 383 (1994) (defines "real party in interest" concept)
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999) (standing requires a personal stake in the outcome)
- Burgess v. Tackas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294 (8th Dist. 1998) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Roberts v. RMB Enterprises, Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 435 (2011) (summary judgment as a device to terminate litigation when no material factual issues exist)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Kolenich, 194 Ohio App.3d 777 (2011) (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment standards)