Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Olds
2015 Ohio 3214
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Zachary and Mary Olds purchased 1483 Hampton Ave. in July 2006 from seller Michael Miller; the purchase closed though repairs were unfinished and the Olds never saw the appraisal until litigation.
- Appraiser Mike Shapuite performed an appraisal valuing the property at $85,000; Olds paid $84,400. Attorney Vincent Farris (a friend) facilitated the mortgage closing and handled closing/title work through Vantage Pointe Title.
- In September 2011 Bank of America filed foreclosure; Olds filed counterclaims and third-party claims (fraud, professional negligence, breach of contract, conspiracy, etc.) against Miller, Shapuite, Farris, and Vantage Pointe.
- Miller and Shapuite moved for summary judgment; trial court granted their motions in April 2013, holding the Olds’ fraud-based claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.09(C)).
- Farris and Vantage Pointe moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted those motions relying heavily on its prior summary-judgment analysis. Olds appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it upheld time-bar rulings as to Miller and Shapuite but reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Farris and Vantage Pointe because the trial court relied on extraneous evidence beyond the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olds’ fraud claims are tolled by the discovery rule such that they are timely under R.C. 2305.09(C) | Olds: discovery rule delays accrual because they did not learn of alleged scheme until 2011; factual dispute when they reasonably should have discovered fraud | Defendants (Miller/Shapuite): fraud accrued at closing/appraisal in 2006; Olds had facts available to discover fraud earlier | Court: Held claims against Miller and Shapuite time-barred — reasonable diligence would have revealed the injuries in 2006; discovery rule inapplicable to delay claim here |
| Whether Olds presented sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment on claims against Miller (seller) | Olds: evidence of collusion, false appraisal, and misrepresentations — triable issues exist | Miller: statute of limitations bars claims; alternatively no genuine issue of material fact on merits | Court: Did not reach merits — claims barred by statute of limitations; alternative merits ruling rendered moot |
| Whether Olds presented sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment on claims against Shapuite (appraiser) | Olds: appraiser produced inflated valuation used to facilitate sale and loan; creates triable issues | Shapuite: claims accrued at appraisal; statute of limitations bars suit; no triable factual issues | Court: Claims against Shapuite time-barred; merits analysis unnecessary and moot |
| Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings for Farris and Vantage Pointe | Olds: trial court relied on extraneous summary-judgment evidence rather than pleadings; judgment on the pleadings inappropriate | Farris & Vantage Pointe: relied on same statute-of-limitations grounds as other defendants | Court: Reversed and remanded — trial court improperly considered summary-judgment evidence in ruling on Civ.R. 12(C) motions; matter sent back for proper 12(C) analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Civ.R. 56(C) summary-judgment criteria)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party's burden in summary judgment)
- Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 (discovery rule starts limitations when plaintiff discovers or should have discovered fraud)
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 (application of discovery rule to appraisals; accrual at appraisal date)
- Cundall v. U.S. Bank, 122 Ohio St.3d 188 (fraud-based claims governed by four-year statute unless undiscovered despite reasonable diligence)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (discovery rule accrual principles)
- O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84 (general rule: cause accrues when wrongful act committed)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (policy behind statutes of limitations)