2023 Ohio 4211
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Plaintiff Ali Mohammadpour, a CPA, was hired in May 2019 by Davood Haghighi/Auto Site, Inc. to prepare and amend business and personal tax returns dating back to 2008; Haghighi had outstanding IRS assessments and a court-ordered deadline to file.
- Mohammadpour received a $5,000 retainer, billed monthly for extensive forensic/bookkeeping work (text-file customer records → ~3,980 pages), and later sold his practice; invoices before 2020 remained payable to him.
- Haghighi paid invoices through November 2019 but did not pay the December 2019 invoice for $24,243.75; Mohammadpour sued for nonpayment (breach of contract/account/unjust enrichment).
- Appellants (Haghighi/Auto Site) counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraudulent billing, and professional negligence/accounting malpractice; each side presented expert testimony about the reasonableness/necessity of the work.
- A jury found an oral contract existed, awarded Mohammadpour $24,243.75 on the nonpayment claim (against Auto Site only), and rejected Appellants’ counterclaims; the trial court judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mohammadpour's Argument | Haghighi/Auto Site's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an action "on account"/nonpayment was established | Oral contract existed; monthly invoices and testimony show unpaid December 2019 invoice of $24,243.75 | Billing records incomplete; plaintiff could not establish an account from zero and breached contract terms | Jury verdict for Mohammadpour sustained; testimony and exhibits supported an account and nonpayment. |
| Whether Appellants proved professional negligence/accounting malpractice | Work was extensive and necessary; billing reasonable; plaintiff’s expert supported reasonableness | Appellants’ expert (Trado) said work was excessive and negligent, meriting damages | Jury rejected malpractice claim; appellate court found verdict not against manifest weight because plaintiff’s testimony and expert contradicted Trado. |
| Whether Appellants were entitled to setoff/recoupment against Mohammadpour’s award | No setoff — no liability adjudicated in Appellants’ favor | Setoff/recoupment should reduce plaintiff’s recovery by Appellants’ malpractice damages | No setoff: because jury found against Appellants on malpractice, no separate liability existed to offset the award. |
| Whether the jury verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Verdicts supported by credible evidence, witness credibility, and expert support | Verdicts were contrary to contract law and unreasoned given plaintiff’s admitted shortcomings | Appellate court held the jury’s findings were supported by competent, credible evidence and did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- AMF, Inc. v. Mravec, 2 Ohio App.3d 29 (8th Dist. 1981) (defines an "account" and when an action on account is appropriate)
- Dykeman v. Johnson, 83 Ohio St. 126 (Ohio 1910) (historical support for action on account via testimony)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (standard that judgment will not be reversed unless unsupported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (framework for manifest-weight review applied in civil context)
- Abrams v. Siegel, 166 Ohio App.3d 230 (8th Dist. 2006) (application of manifest-weight standard in civil appeals)
- Beachwood v. Pearl, 111 N.E.3d 620 (8th Dist. 2018) (discusses when a trier of fact may reject or discount expert testimony)