Solomon v. Harwood
2011 Ohio 5268
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Harwood purchased Adelaide Street property in 2003 for $1.1M; Solomon moved in in 2005 under rent and contemplated purchase terms.
- Numerous extensions and negotiations occurred in 2007 to attempt a closing, including a December 2007 extension offer that Solomon did not sign.
- Foreclosure proceedings by Washington Mutual began in 2006; Solomon stopped paying rent in 2007.
- Solomon filed a mechanic’s lien in December 2007 and subsequently sued, asserting multiple claims against Harwood, Horvath, Resource Title, and others.
- Escrow at Resource Title involved indemnification provisions; funds and extensions were mishandled as parties failed to complete the sale, leading to judgments against Solomon and others.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to several defendants, discharged Solomon’s mechanic’s lien, and awarded damages and fees; Solomon appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harwood was entitled to summary judgment on financing and timing issues | Solomon contends financing was feasible by extension date | Harwood showed Solomon failed to provide required financing materials and never signed the extension | Harwood summary judgment affirmed |
| Horvath’s alleged malpractice/unclean hands | Horvath acted with malice and materially harmed Solomon | Horvath had immunity and no privity with Solomon; no malice shown | Horvath summary judgment affirmed; no malice or privity shown |
| Mustafas’ lis pendens and interference with contract | Mustafas interfered with contract and lis pendens should bar possession | No contract between Harwood and Mustafas to interfere with; lis pendens not applicable | Mustafas summary judgment affirmed; lis pendens not applicable |
| Resource Title’s indemnification and fiduciary duties; damages | Resource Title breached fiduciary duties and contract | Resource Title acted properly; indemnification clause bar/limits liability | Resource Title summary judgment affirmed; indemnification and duties upheld; damages affirmed |
| Occupying claimant law applicability; entitlement to improvements/payments | R.C. 5303.08 applies; Solomon entitled to value for improvements | Solomon never obtained title; occupying claimant law inapplicable | Occupying claimant law not applicable; no entitlement for improvements |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Scholler v. Scholler, 10 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1984) (attorney immunity for third-party claims absent privity or malice)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (duty and causation in legal malpractice; privity issue)
- Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co., 63 Ohio St.3d 657 (Ohio 1992) (no right to jury on attorney’s fees; Civ.R. 38)
- Cincinnati ex rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C., 150 Ohio App.3d 728 (Ohio App. 2002) (lis pendens effect does not create a lien; notice only; outcome dependent on litigation)