Semco, Inc. v. Sims Bros., Inc.
2013 Ohio 4109
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Semco, Inc. sues Sims Bros., Inc. and others over theft of Semco metal materials sold to Sims Bros. at its drive-through center.
- Semco asserted four counts: CSPA claim, civil theft (receiving stolen property), conversion, and unjust enrichment.
- After amended pleadings, the trial court dismissed CSPA and unjust-enrichment; remaining claims included civil theft and conversion.
- Sims Bros. moved for summary judgment on civil theft and conversion; Semco opposed with Potts’ untimely affidavit and related reports.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Sims Bros., finding no genuine issue that materials were stolen or that Sims Bros. knew or had reasonable cause to know they were stolen; and rejected Potts’ affidavit as inadmissible.
- The trial court later awarded Sims Bros. $26,130 in attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F) for prevailing on the CSPA claim, which Semco appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on civil theft was proper | Semco | Sims Bros. | Yes; no genuine issue that Sims Bros. knew or had reasonable cause to believe materials were stolen. |
| Whether demand/refusal elements apply to conversion | Semco | Sims Bros. | Yes; no conversion where Semco did not prove demand and refusal after lawful possession. |
| Whether the attorney-fee award under R.C. 1345.09(F) was proper | Semco | Sims Bros. | Yes; trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees for groundless bad-faith CSPA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, State v. Adams, 2009-Ohio-6863 (3d Dist. Defiance (2009)) (factors for reasonable belief in theft; Adams factors applied to civil-theft issue)
- RFC Capital Corp. v. Hartge Smith Nonwovens, RFC Capital Corp. v. Hartge Smith Nonwovens, L.L.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090100, 2010-Ohio-3992 (Ohio 1st Dist. (2010)) (conversion elements; demand/refusal standards cited)
- Peirce v. Szymanski, Peirce v. Szymanski, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1298, 2013-Ohio-205 (6th Dist. Lucas (2013)) (demand and refusal prerequisite to conversion when possession is lawful)
- Culbreath v. Golding Ents., L.L.C., Culbreath v. Golding Ents., L.L.C., 114 Ohio St.3d 357, 2007-Ohio-4278 (Ohio Supreme Court (2007)) (standing under CSPA; natural person requirement)
- Shumway v. Seaway Foodtown, Inc., Shumway v. Seaway Foodtown, Inc., 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-97-17, 1998 WL 125555 (3d Dist. Crawford (1998)) (Evid. R. 801(D)(2)(d) admissibility of statements by agent)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 1991 (Ohio Supreme Court (1991)) (two-step method for determining attorney-fee awards)