Snyder v. Lawrence
2020 Ohio 3358
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- The Village of Malvern had a written contract to supply water to a manufactured-home park owned by Carolyn Lawrence (later the Lawrence Revocable Trust); that contract is not in the record.
- In 2004 Russell and Lois Reed loaned $300,000 to the Lawrences and took a mortgage and an Assignment of Rents that authorized the Reeds to collect park rents upon default.
- After the Lawrences defaulted, the Reeds began collecting rents (April–May 2016) and paid some water bills but later informed tenants they could not pay high bills caused by excessive consumption (December 2017 letters).
- The Village billed $22,430.06 in unpaid water charges and sued in municipal court; the Village obtained a TRO and then pursued a crossclaim against the Reeds in common pleas court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Reeds, concluding the Village never contracted with the Reeds and their voluntary payments did not create a contractual duty; default judgment was entered against Lawrence/Trust.
- On appeal the Village argued an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract; the appellate court considered only implied-in-fact (implied-in-law waived) and affirmed summary judgment for the Reeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Village) | Defendant's Argument (Reeds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an implied-in-fact contract existed between Village and Reeds for water service | Reeds’ conduct (collecting rents and paying water bills) manifested tacit agreement to be responsible for water account | Reeds only collected rents under the Assignment of Rents and never agreed to assume water-bill liability | No implied-in-fact contract; record shows Reeds disclaimed personal liability and their letters confirm they did not accept responsibility |
| Whether an implied-in-law (quasi-contract/unjust enrichment) claim applies | Village argued equities require Reeds to pay for water they benefitted from | Reeds argued they were secured creditors entitled only to rents; owner (Lawrence) remained liable for utilities | Implied-in-law argument waived on appeal (not raised below); appellate court declined to consider it |
| Whether Reeds’ voluntary payments created an ongoing contractual obligation | Village: voluntary payments plus continued collection of rents imposed continuing duty | Reeds: voluntary, limited payments do not establish a legal obligation absent assent | Trial court and appellate court: voluntary payments are not determinative; no evidence of assent to pay excessive bills |
| Whether Village could pursue multiple responsible parties for same debt | Village sought recovery from both Lawrences and Reeds | Reeds contended they were secured creditors and not the obligors for water | Court noted default judgment against Lawrence/Trust and that Village cannot collect same debt from multiple parties; Reeds not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (moving party summary-judgment burden and nonmoving party reciprocal burden)
- Fairway Manor, Inc. v. Bd. of Commrs. of Summit Cty., 36 Ohio St.3d 85, 521 N.E.2d 818 (1988) (municipal utilities have no duty to serve extraterritorial purchasers absent contract)
- Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1, 540 N.E.2d 257 (1989) (distinguishing express, implied-in-fact, and implied-in-law contracts)
- Paugh & Farmer, Inc. v. Menorah Home for Jewish Aged, 15 Ohio St.3d 44, 472 N.E.2d 704 (1984) (equity governs unjust-enrichment/implied-in-law relief)
- Kalish v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 73, 362 N.E.2d 994 (1977) (cannot change theory on appeal)
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993) (appellate review of issues implicit in those raised below)