Hurlburt v. Klein
2021 Ohio 2167
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Hurlburt and Klein were in a long-term romantic relationship and decided to build a new house on property titled solely to Klein; each contributed $15,000 and obtained a joint loan (Hurlburt co-signed).
- After construction, both contributed to a joint account to make loan payments; about a year later Hurlburt moved out with her mother and stopped contributing.
- Hurlburt sued seeking a constructive trust and deed reformation (and partition/quiet title), alleging she was promised an ownership interest or life occupancy and had contributed substantial funds; she sought restitution of amounts paid.
- The trial court denied a constructive trust but found Klein was unjustly enriched and awarded Hurlburt $23,374 for construction-related payments and charges she had made.
- Hurlburt appealed (three assignments of error); Klein cross-appealed challenging the unjust enrichment finding and the award amount.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court: rejected Hurlburt’s summary-judgment and constructive-trust claims, sustained the unjust-enrichment award, and held the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hurlburt) | Defendant's Argument (Klein) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of partial summary judgment | No genuine issue; her unrecorded interest should be recognized as a matter of law | Genuine disputes of material fact existed about parties' intent and benefit | Moot / overruled — trial on merits showed factual disputes, so denial not reversible |
| Constructive trust and deed reformation | A constructive trust (and deed reformation) was required because she contributed funds and was promised shared ownership/lifetime occupancy | Title was intended to remain in Klein; at most a life estate was contemplated; no fraud or unconscionable conduct | Overruled — equity did not require imposing a constructive trust |
| Manifest-weight challenge to trial findings | Trial court findings (no fraud; no basis for constructive trust) were against the manifest weight of evidence | Trial court credibility and factual findings were supported by the record | Overruled — appellate court will not disturb trial court’s factual credibility determinations |
| Unjust enrichment and $23,374 award (cross-appeal) | She conferred benefit, relied on Klein’s promises, and restitution for construction payments is warranted | Klein’s overall equity decreased after construction; he was not enriched and award is improper | Overruled — trial court reasonably found unjust enrichment and awarded restitution for construction-related payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (motion for summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s burden in summary-judgment proceedings)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 71 Ohio St.3d 150 (denial of summary judgment moot after trial on merits)
- Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling, 109 Ohio St.3d 276 (constructive trust standard; equity’s imprecision)
- Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St.3d 223 (definition and use of constructive trust)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (clear-and-convincing evidence definition)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest-weight standard in civil cases)
- Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 (discussion of unjust enrichment terminology)
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (restitution as remedy for unjust enrichment)