2019 Ohio 4280
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- The Estate of Daniel Neal (administrator Sherri Neal) owned 6545 Hamilton Ave; Lillie White cohabited with Daniel and remained in the house after his death in January 2017.
- Sherri asked White to execute a lease and pay rent or vacate; White refused, and the Estate filed an eviction (forcible-entry-and-detainer) action.
- A magistrate set the rent bond at $0; the municipal court later granted summary judgment for the Estate on the forcible-entry-and-detainer claim, issued a writ of restitution, and White was removed from the property.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial on two remaining claims: (1) rent/restitution under a quasi-contract (unjust enrichment) theory (Estate sought $9,140), and (2) property damage.
- The trial court entered judgment for White on the remaining claims, stating there was "no evidence a landlord–tenant relationship was ever created," and dismissed the Estate’s unjust-enrichment claim on that basis.
- The Estate appealed; the appellate court held the trial court erred by requiring a lease/landlord–tenant relationship for a quasi-contract recovery, reversed the judgment on unjust enrichment, affirmed the property-damage judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an owner can recover reasonable rental value from an occupier under quasi-contract (unjust enrichment) despite no lease | Estate: landlord–tenant relationship not required; unjust enrichment allows recovery of reasonable rental value for occupancy after decedent’s death | White: recovery requires a landlord–tenant relationship or lease; absent that, no rent owed | Court: Quasi-contract does not depend on a lease; trial court erred in treating lack of lease as fatal to unjust-enrichment claim — reversed and remanded |
| Whether the Estate’s failure to object to the magistrate’s $0 rent-bond order bars its later unjust-enrichment claim | Estate: bond hearing was interlocutory/ministerial and limited to calculating a bond; failure to object does not preclude merits of unjust-enrichment claim | White: Estate’s failure to move to set aside bond order should preclude challenge | Court: Bond-order noncompliance doesn’t preclude Estate from litigating the unjust-enrichment claim on the merits |
| Whether the evidence supported a finding of unjust enrichment and amount sought | Estate: presented evidence (including expert testimony) supporting elements of unjust enrichment and valuation | White: some trial evidence suggested she was not unjustly enriched or not in the amount claimed | Court: Sufficiency of unjust-enrichment and valuation must be determined by trial court on remand after reconsideration of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520, 14 N.E.2d 923 (1938) (quasi-contractual liability arises by law to prevent unjust retention of a benefit)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179, 465 N.E.2d 1298 (1984) (elements of unjust enrichment: benefit conferred, defendant’s knowledge, and unjust retention requiring restitution)