Huntington v. Greer
2016 Ohio 5100
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Shaun (Shawn) Greer executed a 2004 promissory note and mortgage; Huntington National Bank is the note holder. A 2010 foreclosure action proceeded to hearings in 2011 and the parties announced a settlement on the record (reinstatement lump-sum + ongoing payments; certified/cashier’s check required).
- The court dismissed the original foreclosure after Huntington failed to journalize the agreed entry; the parties later signed a written Settlement Agreement on April 27, 2012 containing the same material terms (including explicit certified/cashier’s check requirement for the lump-sum payment).
- Greer attempted to tender the lump-sum on May 17, 2012 by personal (uncertified) check; Huntington refused to accept it. Greer also had a returned personal check for periodic payments.
- Greer sued Huntington for breach of the settlement agreement and sought lost profits and attorney fees; Huntington sought foreclosure and money due on the note and counterclaimed breach by Greer.
- The magistrate and trial court found Greer substantially performed, held Huntington breached the settlement, and awarded Greer $119,186.50 in attorney’s fees but denied lost-profits damages. Huntington and Greer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huntington) | Defendant's Argument (Greer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greer substantially performed the settlement by tendering a personal check rather than certified funds | Greer failed to comply with the express certified/cashier’s-check term; failure was material | Tender of the correct amount in good faith constituted substantial performance; Huntington’s refusal unjustified | Appellate court: Greer did not substantially perform; failure to comply with certified-check term was material (reversed trial court) |
| Whether Huntington breached the settlement agreement by rejecting Greer’s payment | Huntington’s obligations were never triggered because Greer failed to perform as required | Huntington unreasonably refused to accept payment and failed to give chance to cure | Appellate court: No breach by Huntington; obligations were not triggered (reversed trial court) |
| Whether Greer was entitled to attorney’s fees for breach of the settlement | Fees award improper because Huntington did not breach and the settlement did not expressly waive fees requirement | Fees were recoverable for Huntington’s breach of a settlement agreement; parties stipulated reasonableness | Appellate court: Fee award improper because Huntington did not breach (reversed) |
| Whether Huntington was entitled to judgment on the promissory note and foreclosure | Huntington established it held the note and mortgage and Greer was in arrears; foreclosure appropriate | Trial court denied foreclosure based on its finding Huntington breached settlement | Appellate court: Huntington entitled to foreclosure proceedings; remanded for further foreclosure-related proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1984) (trial court has authority to enforce voluntarily entered settlement agreements)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (oral settlement agreements may be enforceable)
- Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Cochran, 104 Ohio St. 427 (Ohio 1922) (substantial performance generally precludes breach)
- Luntz v. Stern, 135 Ohio St. 225 (Ohio 1939) (when facts are undisputed, performance vs breach is a question of law)
- Cleveland Neighborhood Health Servs., Inc. v. St. Clair Builders, Inc., 64 Ohio App.3d 639 (Ohio Ct. App.) (nominal or technical deviations do not constitute breach)