Lowry v. Buroker
2017 Ohio 9312
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2015 William Lowry and Brittany Buroker (Plaintiffs) entered a land installment contract to buy William Buroker’s (Defendant) Champaign County parcel for $208,016.11, payable in monthly installments over five years; contract stated buyer may prepay at any time.
- Plaintiffs took possession May 1, 2015, paid monthly amounts to the lender, and became responsible for taxes, utilities, and insurance; the property was subject to two judgment liens that impeded clean title.
- Plaintiffs obtained bank financing in 2017 after agreeing to pay one lien and obtaining subordination of the other; they attended a closing and tendered the full payoff, but Defendant refused to attend, accept proceeds, or sign a deed.
- Plaintiffs sued for specific performance; they moved for summary judgment supported by Brittany’s affidavit asserting tender of the full purchase price and Defendant’s refusal to convey.
- Defendant opposed, arguing the contract required payment over five years and did not permit acceleration/prepayment; he presented no evidentiary materials to rebut Plaintiffs’ affidavit.
- The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment and ordered Defendant to convey upon tender; Defendant appealed, claiming dispute over amount due and that summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the land contract permits prepayment/acceleration | Contract expressly allows prepayment at any time; Plaintiffs tendered full amount and are entitled to conveyance | Contract requires payments over five years; no right to accelerate or prepay entire balance early | Court: Contract unambiguous — paragraph 13 allows prepayment; paragraph 9 requires deed upon full payment; Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance |
| Whether Plaintiffs tendered the full amount due (genuine fact issue) | Brittany’s sworn affidavit states Plaintiffs obtained financing, tendered full purchase price, and Defendant refused to accept or sign | Defendant contends amount due was disputed and Plaintiffs hadn’t satisfied obligations; offered no evidentiary refutation | Court: Affidavit sufficient to meet initial burden; Defendant produced no admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether Defendant’s pleading allegations defeat summary judgment | Plaintiffs say pleadings plus affidavit establish entitlement; summary judgment proper | Defendant relies on pleading allegations and cites DiMarco to argue no prepayment right | Court: Pleadings alone cannot defeat summary judgment once movant meets its burden; DiMarco inapplicable because its contract lacked an express prepayment clause |
| Whether summary judgment standard was met | Plaintiffs argue no genuine issue as to material fact and entitlement as a matter of law | Defendant argues disputed facts and entitlement not shown | Court: De novo review — no genuine issue exists; judgment for Plaintiffs affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard articulated)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (nonmoving party’s burden after movant meets initial burden)
- St. Marys v. Auglaize Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 387 (2007) (contract interpretation is a question of law)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (1995) (giving effect to parties’ intent in contracts)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (clear and unambiguous contract requires application of plain language)
- DiMarco v. Shay, 154 Ohio App.3d 141 (2003) (10th Dist.) (contrasting land-contract prepayment rules where prepayment clause absent)