Morrison v. Renner
2011 Ohio 6780
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Morrison sues Renner in Muskingum County for tortious interference with a business relationship.
- Renner allegedly interfered with Morrison's prospective sale of Morrison’s Brighton Blvd. home via a confronted visit with a prospective buyer, Flexter, who later did not make a offered purchase.
- Flexter stated she would have offered $42,500 for the home but for Renner's conduct; Morrison later sold to Knox for $50,000.
- Morrison had a mortgage on the home and made four regular payments totaling $1,291.32 before paying off the loan.
- The trial court granted Renner summary judgment; Morrison appeals on six assignments of error alleging trial court errors in applying law and evaluating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrison pled a valid prospective business relationship. | Morrison | Renner | Yes, genuine issue on whether prospective relationship existed |
| Whether Renner’s conduct caused actual damages. | Morrison | Renner | No, damages not proven; no causal link |
| Whether the evidence supports damages for lost profits or similar losses. | Morrison | Renner | Limited to no recoverable damages; damages not established |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on Civ.R. 56 standards. | Morrison | Renner | Renner entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether the weight/sufficiency of the evidence supports Morrison’s claim. | Morrison | Renner | Evidence insufficient; court should affirm summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (1995) (defines elements of interference with contractual/business relationships)
- Akron-Canton Waste Oil, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Oil Serv., Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 591 (9th Dist. 1992) (interference standards; damages for prospective relations)
- Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distrib. Co., Inc., 148 Ohio App.3d 596 (3rd Dist. 2002) (distinguishes between contractual vs. prospective relations)
- Gen. Medicine, P.C. v. Morning View Care Ctr., 5th Dist. No. 2003AP12-0088 (2004) (restatement-based damages framework for interference)
- Leibovitz v. Central Natl. Bank, 75 Ohio App.25 (8th Dist. 1944) (defendant must have definite proposal in interference cases)
- Gray-Jones v. Energy Marketing Servs., Inc., 137 Ohio App.3d 93 (10th Dist. 2000) (damages quantification under Section 774A)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)