Ingle-Barr, Inc. v. E. Local School Dist. Bd.
2011 Ohio 584
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ingle-Barr contracted with the State of Ohio, through Eastern Local School District, to build new athletic fields.
- A second contract was entered for improvements at Eastern High School, likewise between Ingle-Barr and the State via Eastern.
- In January 2006, Ingle-Barr sued Eastern for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on both contracts.
- Eastern moved to dismiss, arguing it was not a party to the contracts and that claims belonged to the State in the Court of Claims.
- The trial court converted the motions to summary judgment and held Eastern not a party, dismissing with prejudice.
- On appeal, the court reviews de novo and affirms, holding contracts are between Ingle-Barr and the State; Eastern is not a party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eastern is a party to the contracts | Ingle-Barr contends Eastern may be liable due to involvement with contract documents | Eastern is not a party; contracts are directly between Ingle-Barr and the State of Ohio | Eastern is not a party; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton Funding, L.L.C. v. Herres, 188 Ohio App.3d 686 (2010-Ohio-3645) (summary judgment reviewed de novo for factual issues)
- Broadnax v. Greene Credit Service, 118 Ohio App.3d 881 (1997) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary burden)
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (1995) (evidentiary and contractual interpretation considerations)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (Dresher burden-shifting framework for Civ.R. 56)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 188 Ohio App.3d 250 (2010) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Kalan v. Fox, 187 Ohio App.3d 687 (2010) (clarifies contract-party analysis on summary judgment)