Percio v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 1266

Percio and Grieco sued Smith and Haney for breach of contract, specific performance, and fraud over a property transaction.
A July 12, 2007 Real Estate Purchase Contract for the $150,000 sale existed; no appraisal, title search, or inspection occurred.
On August 28, 2007 Percio paid $149,500 to Haney; Haney then purchased the Property from Smith and registered it in Haney’s name.
Haney contends the $149,500 was a loan for starting a bed-and-breakfast venture, not payment for the Property.
The trial court found no contract and ruled for Smith and Haney; the trial ruling did not enforce repayment, leading to this appeal.
The appellate court held there was an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract to repay the $149,500 and remanded to determine the unpaid balance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a contract implied in fact to repay the loan	Percio/Grieco: implied-in-fact contract formed by loan and repayment.	Smith/Haney: no meeting of minds; no enforceable contract.	Implied-in-fact contract found; trial court error.
Remedy for the unpaid loan amount	Should recover remaining balance on the loan.	No enforceable repayment obligation.	Remand for apportionment of unpaid loan amount; unjust enrichment not necessary.

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio Supreme Court (2012)) (manifest-weight review standards for civil cases)
Discover Bank v. Pierce, 2014-Ohio-625 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2014)) (weighing evidence; appellate review of weight of the evidence)
Stepp v. Freeman, 119 Ohio App.3d 68 (Ohio App.2d 1997) (implied contracts concept and standard of proof)
Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court (1989)) (concepts of express, implied-in-fact, and implied-in-law contracts)
Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St.520 (Ohio Supreme Court (1938)) (definition of implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment limitations)
Wilson v. Street, 2009-Ohio-2328 (Ohio App.2d 2009) (implied contracts inferred from conduct)