Hmeidan v. Muheisen
2017 Ohio 7670
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Eddie and Mimi Hmeidan filed a forcible entry and detainer action to recover commercial property at 125 12th St. NE, Canton; Hasan Muheisen counterclaimed asserting a financing arrangement/equitable mortgage and other contract-based claims.
- Parties executed a November 10, 2011 written lease/purchase agreement (notarized) under which Muheisen was to pay rent/installments and taxes; Hmeidans alleged Muheisen defaulted and owed large arrears in rent and property taxes.
- Hmeidans moved for summary judgment based on Eddie Hmeidan’s affidavit showing missed payments and tax defaults; Muheisen sought time to respond, cited an earlier Arabic handwritten agreement (translated) and filed an affidavit asserting the transaction was a financing arrangement, but his affidavit and translation were untimely and unsigned by the translator.
- Trial court stayed proceedings for a bankruptcy period, later returned the case to the docket, set a briefing deadline, and granted Hmeidans’ summary judgment on April 10, 2017, finding Muheisen in default and rejecting the Arabic document as inadmissible/parol evidence; lease/purchase agreement was declared void and cancelled as to the purchase option and writ of restitution issued.
- Muheisen failed to perfect a stay (did not post the required supersedeas bond), the writ of restitution was executed, and he appealed arguing (1) the court ignored his affidavit and denied discovery and (2) the documents created an equitable mortgage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hmeidan) | Defendant's Argument (Muheisen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not considering Muheisen’s late affidavit and translation and by denying further discovery under summary-judgment timetable | Timely-filed summary-judgment evidence (Hmeidan affidavit) established no genuine issue; court properly enforced briefing schedule | Affidavit and translated Arabic agreement show a financing arrangement/equitable mortgage; needs discovery/time to respond (health/bankruptcy excuses) | Court: No error. Muheisen’s materials were untimely, translation uncertified/hearsay, no Civil Rule 56(F) affidavit to justify delay; denial of extended continuance and exclusion was not abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the purported prior Arabic agreement or parol evidence can negate or re-characterize the written lease/purchase agreement (integration clause) | The written, notarized November 10, 2011 agreement is integrated and controls; parol evidence inadmissible to vary it | Earlier Arabic agreement (and parties’ negotiations) show different intent (financing/equitable mortgage) that should be considered | Court: Integration clause and unambiguous contract bar parol evidence; contract language governs and supports summary judgment for Hmeidan. |
| Whether the transaction should be treated as an equitable mortgage/financing agreement rather than a lease/purchase | N/A (plaintiffs insist document is a lease/purchase and Muheisen defaulted) | Transaction was a loan secured by property (equitable mortgage/financing) so remedies differ | Court: Muheisen’s equitable-mortgage claim rested on inadmissible, untimely evidence; written agreement’s plain terms show lease/purchase and option to buy; equitable mortgage theory not adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (Ohio 1981) (summary-judgment standard and genuine-issue-of-material-fact rule)
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Ohio, 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 1984) (court may not resolve ambiguities on summary judgment)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Drescher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Son Nat’l Bank, 75 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio 1996) (parol evidence rule and integrated written agreements)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 1989) (when agreement is integrated, unexpressed intentions are disregarded)