New Lexington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Muzo Invest. Group, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 1338
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- New Lexington City School District (New Lexington) leased 101 Third Street under a 99‑year lease after selling the property in 2003; it continued to occupy the premises while various owners held title.
- Title passed through several parties; Bayview Loan Servicing (Bayview) obtained a mortgage interest and affiliated IB Property Holdings (IB Property) purchased the property at sheriff’s sale; IB Property later conveyed to Muzo Investment Group (Muzo).
- New Lexington alleged the building deteriorated (roof leaks, mold), was condemned in 2011, and that defendants failed to repair; it sued IB Property, Bayview, and Muzo (negligence, breach of lease, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment).
- Pretrial: defendants sought leave to amend answers late to assert assumption of the risk and comparative/contributory negligence; the court ultimately allowed the amendment shortly before trial. Motion in limine excluded evidence of full replacement/rehabilitation costs.
- Jury found IB Property liable for negligence and breach of contract (but awarded $0 on contract), $10,000 compensatory and $5,000 punitive against IB Property; Bayview not liable on negligence or contract; Muzo liable for $10,000. New Lexington moved for JNOV/new trial; court denied. New Lexington appealed; IB/ Bayview filed a conditional cross‑appeal which they later withdrew if this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing defendants to amend answers shortly before trial to add assumption of risk and contributory negligence | Amendment was undue, prejudicial and improper as applied to a political subdivision; defendants waited until eve of trial | Defendants had given fair notice via original answer, summary judgment filings, and proposed jury instructions; Civ.R. 15(A) favors liberal amendments | No abuse of discretion; amendment permitted because plaintiff had prior notice and no undue prejudice shown |
| Whether comparative negligence (R.C. 2307.23) could be submitted to the jury where defendants raised it as an affirmative defense | New Lexington: comparative fault should not apply; defendants failed to timely plead R.C. 2307.23 affirmative defense before trial | Defendants properly raised contributory negligence as an affirmative defense; R.C. 2307.23 allows raising affirmative defense before trial and jury instruction was appropriate | Held for defendants; jury instruction on comparative fault and interrogatories under R.C. 2307.23 was proper |
| Whether motion in limine excluding evidence of replacement/complete rehabilitation costs was an abuse of discretion | Exclusion contradicted lease terms and prevented recovery allowed by contract | Defendants argued plaintiff offered no expert evidence for such damage measure and such recovery exceeded tenant remedies; exclusion appropriate absent proper evidentiary foundation | Court affirmed exclusion on appeal because appellant failed to include trial transcript to show preserved objection; error not demonstrable on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilmington Steel Products, Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Ill. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (1991) (trial court's decision to grant leave to amend pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellate courts presume regularity of trial court proceedings when record is incomplete)
- Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, 16 N.E.3d 687 (2014) (affirmative defenses are adequate if plaintiff receives fair notice under Civ.R. 8)
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (ruling on motion in limine does not preserve error for appeal absent timely objection or proffer at trial)