Perez Bar & Grill v. Schneider
2012 Ohio 5820
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Perez Bar & Grill LLC rented a building from Thomas Patrick and prepared it for bar/restaurant use.
- Perez installed substantial fixtures for the business, including a wooden bar, back bar, coolers, and a large ventilation hood with fire suppression.
- In 2007, the building was sold at sheriff’s auction to George Schneider after Patrick’s tax problems; Schneider gained ownership of the real property.
- Perez contends certain items remained inside the building and were not abandoned, seeking recovery via replevin or conversion.
- Trial court ruled most contested items were trade fixtures; awarded Perez $9,330 for conversion; appellate modification reduced to $9,230 due to rooftop AC unit being a fixture passing with real estate.
- The appellate court ultimately held the rooftop air conditioning unit is a fixture that passes with real estate, requiring a $100 deduction from the judgment to reflect its value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion is a proper remedy without a pending replevin action | Perez alleges conversion is proper once ownership disputes exist | Schneider argues replevin/ownership should precede any conversion claim | Conversion appropriate; no prerequisite replevin needed |
| Whether Schneider, as sheriff’s-sale purchaser, is protected by ownership presumption | Perez argues no ownership presumption shields Schneider | Schneider seeks protection as innocent purchaser | No presumption; law protects buyers with proof of proper request and denial of return |
| Whether contested items are trade fixtures or fixtures that pass with real estate (air conditioner issue) | Perez contends items are trade fixtures installed for business use | Schneider contends items are fixtures that pass with real estate | Air conditioner is a fixture; other items mostly trade fixtures; judgment adjusted to reflect fixture status |
| Whether property was abandoned | Perez asserts non-use evidence does not prove abandonment | Schneider argues abandonment due to lockout and non-use | Property not abandoned; trial court's finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 (1853) (fixture framework with three Teaff elements)
- Holland Furnace Co. v. Trumbull Sav. & Loan Co., 135 Ohio St. 48 (1939) (importance of intent and usefulness; exercise of permanency test)
- Masheter v. Boehm, 37 Ohio St. 2d 68 (1974) (flexibility in Teaff factors for fair result)
- State ex rel. Toma v. Corrigan, 92 Ohio St. 3d 589 (2001) (definitional guidance on conversion’s elements)
- Wait v. Bank One, Cincinnati, 110 Ohio App. 3d 460 (1996) (purchaser not liable for abandoned personal property; caveat emptor context)
- Zangerle v. Republic Steel Corp., 144 Ohio St. 529 (1945) (assessment of fixtures and annexation considerations)