Moore v. Schill
129 N.E.3d 1013
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2019Background
- In 2008 Moore wired $239,000 to an attorney-trust account for investment in a real-estate deal ("REO 106") that failed and was later revealed fraudulent; funds were routed through Siam Joseph into an Ameritrust escrow account.
- Schill, an attorney and officer of related companies, authorized multiple disbursements from the Ameritrust account to a PMCC account and to other uses; Moore never received a return of the $239,000.
- Moore sued alleging misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and veil-piercing; all claims except misrepresentation were discharged in Schill’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and only the misrepresentation claim went to jury trial.
- The jury found for Moore on misrepresentation, awarded $189,000 in compensatory damages (apportioned largely to Schill) and $25,000 in punitive damages based on clear-and-convincing evidence of egregious fraud.
- After trial the court reduced the punitive award to $0 under R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b) based on Schill’s asserted negative net worth; Moore appealed that reduction, and Schill cross-appealed the denial of his summary-judgment motion.
- The appellate court reinstated the $25,000 punitive award (finding insufficient evidence of Schill’s 2008 net worth) and affirmed denial of summary judgment (finding genuine factual disputes on misrepresentation, conversion, and unjust enrichment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly reduced punitive damages to $0 under R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b) | Moore: No evidence was submitted proving Schill’s net worth in 2008, so statutory cap/reduction inapplicable | Schill: Bankruptcy records and affidavit show negative net worth at time of tort, warranting reduction to $0 | Reversed reduction; punitive damages reinstated ($25,000). Court: Schill failed to prove 2008 net worth, burden rests on party seeking reduction. |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment on misrepresentation | Moore: Joseph was Moore’s agent; Schill made representations (letter) and controlled disbursements; facts show actionable misrepresentation | Schill: No contractual/agency relationship with Moore; lacked authority to direct Ameritrust transfers; any payments were legitimate due diligence | Summary judgment properly denied; factual disputes (authority, disclosure of pecuniary interest, agency) preclude judgment as matter of law. |
| Whether summary judgment should have been granted on conversion claim | Moore: Documentary trail ties wired funds to Moore; demand/nonreturn and letter promise to return establish conversion | Schill: Moore/agent did not identify funds as his and did not request return; no wrongful dominion | Summary judgment denied; genuine issues exist whether funds were Moore’s and whether Schill wrongfully exercised dominion. |
| Whether summary judgment should have been granted on unjust enrichment | Moore: He conferred benefit; Schill knew and retention would be unjust given representations | Schill: No relationship or obligation; payments were for due diligence; no unjust retention | Summary judgment denied; factual disputes on benefit, knowledge, and unjust retention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. McDaniels, 9 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio 1984) (plaintiff need not prove defendant’s finances; burden to prove net worth for punitive-damage reduction rests on defendant)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (appellate standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary-judgment test articulated)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s initial burden and nonmovant’s reciprocal duty in summary-judgment proceedings)
- Hambleton v. R. G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (elements of unjust enrichment claim)
- Tabar v. Charlie's Towing Serv., 97 Ohio App.3d 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (definition and elements of conversion)
- Bench Billboard Co. v. Columbus, 63 Ohio App.3d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (conversion principles applied)
- Faieta v. World Harvest Church, 147 Ohio Misc.2d 51 (Ohio Com. Pl. 2008) (noting lack of statutory definition/guidance for "net worth" at time of tort)