Minaya v. NVR, Inc.
103 N.E.3d 160
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nadia and Misael Minaya (with five children) moved into a house built in 1988 and later discovered black mold and multiple defects causing water infiltration and health problems.
- They sued the original builder NVR, Inc. d/b/a Ryan Homes for fraudulent concealment, negligence/gross negligence, and sought punitive damages.
- They also sued the City of Strongsville for failing to inspect before issuing a certificate of occupancy and for falsifying inspection records, alleging wanton/reckless conduct and fraud.
- Ryan Homes moved to dismiss under the ten-year statute of repose (R.C. 2305.131); city moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting political-subdivision immunity (R.C. 2744).
- Trial court granted both motions; Minayas appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: negligence claims against Ryan Homes barred by statute of repose; fraudulent-concealment claim failed for lack of Civ.R. 9(B) particularity and because alleged misrepresentations were not made to the Minayas; city immune from suit and ordinances did not create a private right of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence/gross-negligence claims against Ryan Homes are barred by the 10-year statute of repose | Minayas: defects caused ongoing injury; alleged latent defects and mold support claims | Ryan Homes: home completed in 1988; claims filed in 2015 are time-barred under R.C. 2305.131 | Held: negligence/gross-negligence claims barred by statute of repose |
| Whether fraudulent-concealment claim avoids the statute of repose | Minayas: builder hid defects in inaccessible areas; concealment tolled repose | Ryan Homes: fraud not pleaded with Civ.R. 9(B) particularity; no direct representations to Minayas | Held: fraud claim dismissed — pleading lacks particularity and cannot be premised on indirect/third-party representations |
| Whether City of Strongsville is immune for inspection/occupancy claims | Minayas: inspector acted wantonly/recklessly and falsified records; city failed to train/monitor | City: building inspections are governmental functions entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744; no exception applies | Held: city immune; exceptions to immunity inapplicable; allegations do not create private right of action under ordinances |
| Whether municipal ordinances created a private duty to homeowners (failure-to-train/monitor claim) | Minayas: Strongsville ordinances imposed duties (certificate of occupancy, inspections) that support negligence claim | City: ordinances protect the public generally, not specific individuals; no private right of action | Held: ordinances enact duties to the public at large, do not create private right of action; no duty owed to Minayas |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 849 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2006) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 327 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1975) (pleading standard cited for motions to dismiss)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 573 N.E.2d 1063 (Ohio 1991) (plaintiff survives dismissal if any set of facts consistent with complaint could afford relief)
- Sedar v. Knowlton Const. Co., 551 N.E.2d 938 (Ohio 1990) (statute of repose extinguishes causes after fixed period)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 843 N.E.2d 1170 (Ohio 2006) (elements of fraudulent concealment)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 532 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1988) (allegations in complaint must be supported by facts)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept., 639 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1994) (R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) applies to individual employees, not political subdivisions)
- Cater v. Cleveland, 697 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio 1998) (R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) is a defense to liability, not a basis to establish liability)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 472 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1984) (elements required to establish negligence)