Richland Auto Group, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, 2012 Ohio 3060

Richland Auto Group, Inc. and Fifth Third Bank are parties to a prior business financing relationship involving an $8,000,000 loan.
In Feb. 2008, Bank proposed a SWAP to fix $4,000,000 of the loan; Schluter orally agreed but refused to sign the Confirmation Letter due to terms.
The oral SWAP was never reduced to writing; appellant continued paying SWAP-related charges.
In May 2010, the Borrowers and Lender executed a Loan Assumption and Modification Agreement containing a broad release (Section 9).
The Additional Borrower named in the agreement was Whitey’s Nissan, Inc.; in Nov. 2010, Richland Auto Group terminated the SWAP and paid related fees, including a $40,000 termination fee.
In Jan. 2011, Richland Auto Group sued for lack of meeting of the minds, unjust enrichment, estoppel, and misrepresentation, seeking to void the SWAP and damages; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fifth Third Bank based on the release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Section 9 release bars the claims.	Richland argues the SWAP and related claims are not within the release.	Fifth Third contends the release is broad and covers all claims arising from the facts as of May 25, 2010, including SWAP.	Release bars post‑May 25, 2010 claims; appeal denied.

Lewis v. Mathes, 161 Ohio App.3d 1 (4th Dist. 2005) (release of damages claims favored; contract interpretation governs scope of release)
Fabrizio v. Hendricks, 100 Ohio App.3d 352 (11th Dist. 1995) (release of claim for damages defined by language and scope of contract)
Haller v. Borror Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 10 (1990) (release generally bar to actions for damages unless excluded by language)
Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary judgment standard; contract interpretation applied to releases)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) ( Dresher standard for summary judgment; shifting burdens in Civ.R.56)