2013 Ohio 952
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Erwin and wife allege Wise orally promised to bequeath property at 4546 Old Scioto Trail in return for moving to Ohio to care for Wise and manage the Wanda Wise Trust property.
- Erwins moved to Ohio in 2001, left careers, cared for Wise about 10 years, and made improvements to the trailer-park property.
- Wise transferred the property to the Wanda E. Wise Revocable Trust around March 2011 after the Erwins had fulfilled their end of the alleged bargain.
- Erwins sued in May 2011 seeking breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, fraud, and tortious interference.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by R.C. 2107.04 (the statute of the will) and by the applicable statute of limitations; Alicia Erwin’s standing was contested.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding that no writing was produced as required by R.C. 2107.04 and that the claims were time-barred; the case was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RC 2107.04 bar the Erwins’ oral-devise claims? | Erwins rely on part performance and family-exception theories. | Wise/Trust argue 2107.04 is dispositive and requires a writing for any will/devise. | 2107.04 bars the oral-devise claims; exceptions do not apply. |
| Do part performance or a family-exception remove 2107.04 from operation? | Part performance or family-exception may render 2107.04 inoperative. | No such exceptions exist under Sherman; 2107.04 governs. | Part performance and family-exception doctrines do not render 2107.04 inoperative. |
| Were the Erwins' claims time-barred under the statute of limitations? | Claims were timely under applicable limitations periods. | Claims are barred by statute of limitations and 2107.04. | Holding dispositive on 2107.04; time-bar issues are moot. |
| Did the trial court err in not addressing non-contractual claims such as quantum meruit? | Unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claims survive even if contractual claims fail. | Court properly dismissed all claims under 2107.04 and statute of limitations. | Court addressed but merited dismissal based on 2107.04; non-contractual claims moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. Johnson, 159 Ohio St. 209 (1953) (part performance does not render 2107.04 inoperative)
- Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 75 Ohio St.3d 433 (1996) (statute of frauds vs. 2107.04 distinction; writing requirement)
- Tier v. Singrey, 154 Ohio St. 521 (1951) (equity for specific enforcement requires reliance and prejudice)
- Brannan v. Fowler, 100 Ohio App.3d 577 (1995) (treatment of 2107.04; writing requirement for wills/devise)
- Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 2010-Ohio-1894 (4th Dist. 2010) (part performance principles; specific to equity and contracts)