Shelter Growth v. Rucci
2017 Ohio 9073
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shelter Growth (Plaintiff) filed a foreclosure action in Mahoning C.P. Ct. after Sebastian Rucci (Trustee) defaulted on a 2012 mortgage; complaint sought about $91,350 plus interest and fees.
- During litigation the property was sold; Shelter issued two written payoff letters (July 7 and July 21, 2016) listing line‑item balances and stating that receipt of full payment would result in dismissal of the action; the second letter was "good through July 31, 2016."
- At closing the title company paid the second payoff amount ($111,488.64) to Shelter, but Shelter did not dismiss the foreclosure action as the letters promised.
- Defendants moved to enforce the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice; Shelter opposed, claiming a unilateral/mutual mistake and asserting an additional ~$22,001.96 in "penalty interest" was owed and that a 24‑hour notice requirement made the payoff nonfinal.
- Trial court granted Defendants’ motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding the second payoff letter was an enforceable settlement offer, payment had been made, and the action was settled; Shelter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Shelter: factual disputes (mutual mistake, math error, 24‑hour notice) required a hearing before enforcing settlement | Rucci: payoff letter was clear and unambiguous; no allegations of fraud/duress; no factual dispute that payment was made | Court: no abuse of discretion; when terms are unambiguous no hearing required; letters contained essential terms |
| Whether a valid settlement/meeting of the minds existed (mutual mistake claim) | Shelter: payoff miscalculation and omitted "penalty interest" show no meeting of minds or material mutual mistake | Rucci: any error was unilateral (Shelter prepared the letters); omitted penalty interest was not a mutual mistake and was not an item covered in the payoff | Court: no mutual mistake; errors were unilateral or non‑material; payoff listed total amount and was accepted, so settlement enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1984) (trial court may enforce settlements; hearing required when factual disputes like fraud/duress exist)
- Reilley v. Richards, 69 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 1994) (mutual mistake rescission standard; material mistake defined)