Scott Charles Laundromat Inc. v. Akron
2012 Ohio 2886
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Scott Charles Laundromat, Inc. entered into two contracts with the City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau for water and sewer services for two laundries.
- The contracts designated the properties as used for an industrial purpose and provided payment at regular rates as established or revised.
- For nearly two decades the City charged the industrial rate rather than a commercial rate.
- In 2010 Scott Charles sued the City for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment seeking commercial-rate charges.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; on appeal, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment for the City.
- The court addressed whether the contracts and city ordinances correctly classify the user and rate, and whether the conduct supports fraud, conversion, or unjust enrichment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City properly billed industrial rate under the contracts. | Scott Charles contends it should be billed as commercial based on actual use. | City correctly billed at industrial rate per contract and ordinance definitions. | Yes; industrial rate proper; summary judgment for City. |
| Whether the fraud claim survives given constructive notice and contract terms. | City concealed that laundries are commercial and that industrial-rate charges apply. | Scott Charles had constructive notice of ordinances and could not rely on representations. | No; summary judgment for City on fraud claim. |
| Whether the conversion claim lies in charging industrial rather than commercial rate. | Overcharging constitutes wrongful disposition of Scott Charles’ property rights. | Rates were properly billed per contract and ordinance; no wrongful conversion. | No; summary judgment for City on conversion claim. |
| Whether unjust enrichment supports recoveries for the overcharge. | Retention of the overcharge would be unjust. | Contract governs obligations, displacing unjust enrichment claims. | No; summary judgment for City on unjust enrichment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ullmann v. May, 147 Ohio St. 468 (1947) (courts do not relieve a competent party from an improvident contract absent fraud or bad faith)
- Bakies v. City of Perrysburg, 2004-Ohio-5231 (6th Dist.) (recipient has constructive notice of city ordinances; cannot rely on representations)
- Toma v. Corrigan, 92 Ohio St.3d 589 (2001) (definition and elements of conversion)
- McCartney v. Universal Elec. Power Corp., 2004-Ohio-959 (9th Dist.) (contract governs the obligations displacing unjust enrichment inquiry)