LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, 166 N.E.3d 37

Background

In 1994 B.E.B. Properties leased part of its Chardon, Ohio property to Northern Ohio Cellular and granted an easement; a cell tower was built on the site.
In 1995 B.E.B. sold the land to Baker and Cyvas; the sellers and purchasers understood the sale did not include the right to future tower rental payments. B.E.B. later assigned the right to receive those rents to the Birds for consideration.
Baker/Cyvas (and successors) conveyed the land to 112 Parker Court (2003); New Par (Verizon) continued paying annual rent to the Birds after that conveyance. LRC acquired the land in 2013 and sought the rent.
Litigation began in 2014. The trial court allocated certain past rents to 112 Parker Court and later to LRC; the Birds appealed. This court initially sided with the Birds on ownership of the rent, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding B.E.B. had not reserved the right to future rents and the Birds’ assignment was ineffective.
On remand the Birds and LRC settled; remaining dispute limited to damages claimed by 112 Parker Court against the Birds for rent the Birds received. The appellate court affirmed the trial court on deed reformation and claims against New Par, but reversed the damages award to 112 Parker Court and remanded for further proceedings because genuine factual issues exist about equitable defenses and Parker’s knowledge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court erred granting summary judgment and awarding damages to landowner for rents the Birds received	Birds: trial court wrongly held Birds never had rent rights and must disgorge rents within 8‑year SOL	112 Parker: Birds unjustly withheld rents owed to successive landowners; summary judgment appropriate	Court: Reversed damages award to 112 Parker Court; genuine issues of material fact exist so summary judgment on damages improper
2. Whether claims against Birds were equitable only and derivative liability was not pleaded at summary judgment	Birds: awards were equitable restitution; 112 Parker did not plead derivative liability or an appropriate legal theory	112 Parker: asserted money‑had‑and‑received/tort theories supporting recovery against Birds	Court: Recognized equitable theories (money had and received, tortious interference) could apply; issues remain for trial; summary judgment improper on damages
3. Whether 112 Parker Court had actual knowledge of the Birds’ reservation of rent, barring recovery for 2007–2012	Birds: 112 Parker knew rents were reserved to prior owner and accepted property without acquiring rent rights	112 Parker: denies knowledge or disputes effect of any knowledge on entitlement	Court: Found genuine factual disputes about Parker’s knowledge and equitable balance; summary judgment improper
4. Whether R.C. 2305.06 (8‑year SOL for written contracts) bars recovery because no contract existed between Birds and 112 Parker	Birds: statute of limitations for written contracts inapplicable because no contract between Birds and Parker	112 Parker: relied on limitations and other legal theories to recover past rents	Court: Did not resolve SOL question on summary judgment; factual/equitable issues require further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, 160 Ohio St.3d 218 (2020) (Ohio Supreme Court held B.E.B. did not reserve right to future rental payments; assignment to Birds ineffective)
Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (2000) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment standard articulated)
Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 (1938) (equitable action for money had and received/restitution principles)
Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995) (definition and elements of tortious interference with contract)
Natl. City Bank, Norwalk v. Stang, 84 Ohio App.3d 764 (1992) (discussing action for money had and received/restitution)