McConnell v. Bare Label Prods., Inc.
104 N.E.3d 9
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- McConnell sued Tammy Schmitt on counts including R.C. 1701.37(C) disclosure violations, interference with business, fiduciary duty breach, and punitive/attorney fees.
- Trial court initially awarded McConnell $23,030 against Schmitt; remitted, and appellate remand followed.
- Appellate mandate in 2015 was non-purposive due to a non-majority opinion, creating confusion about remand directives.
- On remand, trial court awarded $23,071 for club operations and $23,071 for six months under McConnell’s contract, but did not address Masury Real Estate profits.
- McConnell’s assignments of error challenged statutory forfeiture damages, lost profits including Masury Real Estate, punitive damages, and ownership-related damages.
- This court reverses/modifies the lower court, awards additional statutory damages and Masury profits, remands for punitive-damages hearing and attorney fees, and reassigns the case to another judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandate compliance required statutory forfeiture damages. | McConnell entitled to RC 1701.94 damages per mandate. | Schmitt not charged with duties, so no statutory forfeiture. | Yes; trial court must award statutory damages under RC 1701.94. |
| Whether Masury Real Estate lost profits were correctly awarded. | Entitled to Masury profits as per prior judgment. | Damages for Masury profits were unproven/too remote. | Masury profits awarded; remand to include $35,770. |
| Whether punitive damages were properly awarded on remand. | Appellate directives require punitive damages per prior decision. | One-dollar punitive award reflects lack of evidence. | Punitive damages reversed/remanded for proper determination and attorney fees. |
| Whether the trial court erred by disregarding a majority-opinion remand directive on Masury/lease issues. | Court must follow the majority’s remand directives. | Remand lacked a majority opinion creation, so discretion allowed. | Court must adhere to majority opinion on remand; correct calculations now ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (mandates adherence to appellate judgments; law of the case if majority exists)
- Gohman v. St. Bernard, 111 Ohio St. 726 (1924) (limits on using law-of-the-case to oppress)
- State ex rel. Potain v. Mathews, 59 Ohio St.2d 29 (1979) (constitutional construction of appellate mandates)
- Columbus v. Hayes, 68 Ohio App.3d 184 (1990) (assignment of another judge when mandate is not followed)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (2012) (standards for sufficiency and appellate review)