Giancola v. Azem (Slip Opinion), 109 N.E.3d 1194

Background

Nicholas Giancola was admitted to Walton Manor in October 2011; an admission form and arbitration agreement were executed; he died in December 2011 and his estate sued for survival and wrongful-death claims.
The trial court found Giancola’s mother had signed the arbitration agreement and had apparent authority to bind him, and ordered arbitration of the survival claim.
On first appeal (Kolosai I), the Eighth District reversed, because appellee Walton Manor effectively conceded the trial court’s apparent-authority rationale and the court would not affirm on a basis the appellee said was factually wrong; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
On remand Walton Manor submitted new materials (documents and a handwriting expert) asserting that Nicholas himself signed the arbitration agreement; the trial court accepted that evidence, found Nicholas had signed the agreement, and compelled arbitration.
On second appeal (Kolosai II), the Eighth District held the trial court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by reconsidering who signed the agreement and by considering the handwriting evidence; the district court barred enforcement under apparent-authority and declined to consider the new evidence.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to decide the proper scope and limits of the law-of-the-case doctrine on remand and whether the trial court could consider new evidence bearing on who actually signed the arbitration agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred reconsideration of who signed the arbitration agreement on remand	The appellate decision in Kolosai I resolved that arbitration could not be enforced on apparent-authority grounds; law of the case prevents relitigation	Law of the case limited to issues decided on appeal; remand returns parties to the position before the error, allowing new factual evidence on remand	Held: Law of the case applies only to legal questions previously decided; it did not bar the trial court from considering new evidence about who signed the agreement
Whether Kolosai I conclusively determined that the mother signed the arbitration agreement	Kolosai argued the appellate decision foreclosed relitigation of signatory issue	Walton Manor argued Kolosai I did not decide who actually signed and had repudiated the apparent-authority rationale	Held: Kolosai I addressed only apparent authority, not the factual question whether Nicholas signed; it did not conclusively decide the signatory question
Whether the trial court exceeded the appellate mandate by admitting handwriting-expert evidence on remand	Plaintiff: handwriting evidence was neither new nor discovered with due diligence and thus should not be considered; law of the case bars it	Defendant: trial court has discretion on remand to accept new evidence and control its docket to address factual issues	Held: Trial court may consider new evidence on remand; the law-of-the-case doctrine does not prevent consideration of newly presented or previously unavailable factual evidence
Scope of the remand/mandate — did remand preclude Walton Manor from asserting that Nicholas signed the agreement	Plaintiff: remand should not allow reinstating the argument Walton Manor had effectively withdrawn on appeal	Defendant: remand returns parties to the position before the error, permitting reassertion of withdrawn factual claims supported by new evidence	Held: Remand returns the case to the point of error and does not foreclose defendants from presenting new evidence or reasserting factual claims about who signed the agreement

Key Cases Cited

Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (defines law-of-the-case doctrine)
Hopkins v. Dyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio 2004) (explains doctrine’s role in ensuring consistency and binding inferior courts to appellate mandates)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1979) (law-of-the-case applies only to issues previously determined; lower courts free on other issues on remand)
Sprague v. Ticonic Natl. Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1939) (mandate controls matters within its compass; other issues remain open on remand)
State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of Rev., 85 Ohio St.3d 640 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishes legal questions conclusively decided on appeal from unresolved theories a tribunal may consider on remand)