Had Enterprises v. Galloway
192 Ohio App. 3d 133
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant HAD Enterprises appeals a Pike County Court of Common Pleas decision denying its claims arising from an alleged oral contract to improve real property.
- Trial court found no binding contract and denied all claims except fraudulent conveyance; it also rejected unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel theories.
- Work occurred for nearly two years on Wanda Galloway’s property and adjacent property; appellant sought payment after billing $14,972.
- Galloways contend there was no agreement or compensation discussed beyond allowing some work to proceed.
- Court found no clear contract terms and that the work was largely gratuitous, denying relief on quasi-contract and promissory-estoppel theories.
- This court affirmed, addressing five assigned errors primarily related to unjust enrichment and promissory-estoppel theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment available despite lack of express contract | HAD argues unjust enrichment applies | Galloways contend no contract and no unjust enrichment | Unjust enrichment not applicable; trial court did not err in denying it |
| Use of lay witness testimony to value benefit | HAD relied on witnesses for value of benefit | Galloways contend testimony is improper valuation | Lay testimony permissible; any error harmless though incorrect method used to value benefit |
| Promissory estoppel proven by clear promise | HAD asserts a clear promise to pay or allow use | Galloways deny any clear, unambiguous promise | No clear, unambiguous promise; promissory estoppel not established |
| Reliance on promise and consent boundaries | Promissory-estoppel requires reasonable reliance on promise | No misrepresentation or memorandum promises; statute of frauds issues | Not reached due to lack of promise; remaining assignments dismissed as dependent on promissory estoppel |
| Consequences of lack of contract on claims | Quasi-contract remedies should apply upon lack of express contract | Without contract, other theories fail | Promissory-estoppel and unjust-enrichment claims rejected; contract-free relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dailey v. Craigmyle & Son Farms, L.L.C., 177 Ohio App.3d 439 (Ohio App. 2008) (unjust enrichment (quantum meruit) protects against unjust enrichment in absence of express contract)
- Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 (1938) (illustrates unjust enrichment concept)
- Cooper v. Smith, 155 Ohio App.3d 218 (Ohio App. 2003) (definitions of unjust enrichment and recovery limits)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 1988) (foundational for unjust enrichment constitutional principles)
- Dixon v. Smith, 119 Ohio App.3d 308 (Ohio App. 1997) (references to quantum meruit and unjust enrichment interplay)
- In re Estate of Popov, 2003-Ohio-4556 (Ohio) ( Restatement-based promissory estoppel and element considerations)
- Ryan v. Rival Mfg. Co., 1981 WL 10160 (Hamilton App. 1981) (note on incompatibility of quasi-contract and express contract actions (WL cited; omitted))