Heltzel v. Verikakis
2022 Ohio 1764
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Heltzel leased an apartment from V‑Brothers (signed July 2017) and accepted renewal addenda in 2018, 2019, and signed the 2020 addendum on August 1, 2020 (which referenced automatic year‑to‑year renewal and month‑to‑month consequences if not returned).
- On December 3, 2020 Heltzel notified the landlord he intended to vacate by Feb 1, 2021; landlord responded that the lease renewed through July 31, 2021 and rent remained due unless a new tenant was found.
- Heltzel vacated in January 2021 and in March 2021 sued "Nick Verikakis, d.b.a. V‑Brothers Properties" (individually) and the law firm Powers Friedman Linn to recover his security deposit and fees.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Heltzel misnamed parties (the proper defendant is the LLC), Powers had no actionable conduct, and Heltzel owed rent; there was pretrial confusion about whether defendants obtained leave to file the summary judgment motion.
- The trial court ultimately denied joinder of V‑Brothers, granted summary judgment for the named defendants (finding Powers had no claim against it and that the LLC, not Verikakis individually, was the liable entity), and Heltzel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by granting summary judgment after initially denying leave to file the motion | Heltzel: the court nullified defendants' motion by denying leave, so granting it later was error | Defendants: leave was effectively obtained (motion filed under correct case number; Heltzel responded) and the court has docket control and discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders | Court: no abuse of discretion; trial court could reconsider and implicitly granted leave; summary judgment proper on the merits |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to join V‑Brothers as a necessary party under Civ.R. 19 | Heltzel: V‑Brothers was a necessary/indispensable party and should be joined | Defendants: V‑Brothers could be litigated in the companion consolidated case (V‑Brothers v. Heltzel); joinder in this case not required | Court: V‑Brothers was not indispensable; denial of joinder was not an abuse of discretion because relief could be sought in the consolidated companion case |
| Whether Powers Friedman Linn was a proper defendant | Heltzel: named Powers to preserve claims for any future actionable conduct | Defendants: Powers committed no wrongful conduct here and no claim was alleged or assigned to it | Court: Heltzel conceded no claim against Powers; summary judgment for Powers affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dombroski v. WellPoint, 119 Ohio St.3d 506 (Ohio 2008) (tests and standards for piercing the corporate veil)
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 1993) (three‑part veil‑piercing test)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s burden in summary judgment practice)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (standard for construing evidence and summary judgment appropriateness)
- Nilavar v. Osborn, 137 Ohio App.3d 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (trial court's authority to reconsider interlocutory orders)