Morton v. Murray
2018 Ohio 5178
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Morton, a pro se attorney, helped obtain a property tax reassessment that reduced real estate taxes for property owned by the Rosses.
- The Rosses had not paid taxes at the pre-reassessment rate, so Cuyahoga County Treasurer Murray obtained a tax lien and sold it to Lakeview Holding, LLC.
- Morton sued the county treasurer (in his official capacity) and Lakeview for unjust enrichment, seeking his attorney fees from the fund allegedly created by the tax reduction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the treasurer, finding equitable claims like unjust enrichment unavailable against the county and that any overpayment credit belongs to the payer (Morton conceded he never paid the taxes).
- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Lakeview, finding Morton neither paid the taxes nor established an attorney-client relationship with the Rosses and thus conferred no enforceable benefit on Lakeview.
- Morton appeals, arguing errors in the grant of summary judgment to the treasurer, denial of directed verdict, and the final judgment for Lakeview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treasurer liable for unjust enrichment / entitled to Morton’s fee | Morton: treasurer holds a fund created by his legal services and is a necessary party to adjudicate his claim against Lakeview | Treasurer: county immune from equitable claims; any tax overpayment credit belongs to the payer (Morton did not pay) | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for treasurer — counties cannot be sued for unjust enrichment and Morton stipulated he never paid taxes, so no right to overpayment credit |
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted after opening statements | Morton: entitled to directed verdict based on his unopposed summary judgment and prima facie case | Lakeview: opening statements are not evidence; motion premature and improper | Court: Denied — opening statements contain no evidence; summary-judgment motion is not a pleading and could not supply evidence for a directed verdict |
| Whether Lakeview was unjustly enriched by Morton’s services | Morton: his legal work created a fund from which he should recover fees | Lakeview: Morton did not pay taxes, did not confer a direct benefit on Lakeview, and was not retained by the Rosses | Court: Judgment for Lakeview — Morton had no right to tax overpayment and failed to prove an attorney-client relationship or confer an equitable benefit |
| Whether Morton's failure to obtain a retainer defeats equitable recovery | Morton: claimed he was retained (stipulation with treasurer), asserted equitable entitlement | Lakeview: not bound by treasurer’s stipulation; Morton admitted no retainer/agreement with Rosses | Court: Held Morton failed to establish attorney-client relationship; equitable recovery for fees not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Flower v. Brunswick City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 34 N.E.3d 973 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (appellate review confined by how plaintiff framed the complaint)
- Parrish v. Jones, 3 N.E.3d 155 (Ohio 2013) (court should exercise caution in granting directed verdict on opening statement; pleadings may be considered in limited circumstances)
- Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 325 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio 1975) (standard urging caution before directing verdict on opening statements)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 642 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1994) (denial of summary judgment is harmless if subsequent trial supports opposite judgment)
- L&N Partnership v. Lakeside Forest Assn., 916 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (opening statements are not evidence)