Sorrell v. Micomonaco
2017 Ohio 1498
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tony and the Micomonaco Family Trust contracted to sell a parcel to Charles Sorrell for $90,000 (May 30, 2013); closing was scheduled and Sorrell paid earnest money and appeared ready to close on June 30, 2013.
- Tony (trustee) failed to attend the scheduled closing; Sorrell sued on July 8, 2013 seeking specific performance of the purchase contract.
- While Sorrell’s specific‑performance suit was pending, the Trust conveyed the property (Aug. 19, 2013) to AAM Properties, LLC (a family business tied to Fred Micomonaco), after an earlier June 27, 2013 contract between Fred and the Trust.
- Sorrell amended to add AAM and obtained default liability against the Trust; a magistrate and then the trial court found lis pendens applied, rescinded the conveyance to AAM, and ordered specific performance in favor of Sorrell.
- AAM appealed, arguing (inter alia) that lis pendens did not apply, specific performance was inappropriate after a conveyance to a third party, the contract had expired, and AAM should be reimbursed for maintenance/taxes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sorrell) | Defendant's Argument (AAM) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific performance is an available remedy after the seller conveys the property to a third party during litigation | Specific performance is appropriate because damages are inadequate for land, Sorrell had performed and was ready to close, and equities favor him | Specific performance is improper because the Trust already conveyed the property to AAM (so seller cannot perform), and money damages suffice | Affirmed specific performance; damages inadequate for unique adjoining parcel and equities favor Sorrell |
| Whether lis pendens applies to a pending suit for specific performance based on an executory contract to purchase land | Lis pendens applies because the suit directly affects title and preserves the status quo; purchasers take subject to outcome | Lis pendens inapplicable because plaintiff had no recorded title and only an executory contract; AAM’s preexisting contract (June 27) gave it rights | Lis pendens applies to suits seeking specific performance of land contracts; Sorrell’s contractual interest constituted "title" under R.C. 2703.26; AAM’s later conveyance took subject to the suit |
| Whether AAM’s or Fred’s claimed informal family right/first‑refusal defeats Sorrell’s contract | N/A (Sorrell argues his written contract controls) | AAM argues Fred had an informal family privilege/right to buy (and contracted June 27) | Informal family understanding unenforceable (statute of frauds and unrecorded); AAM cannot assert unrecorded/unenforceable rights superior to Sorrell |
| Whether AAM is entitled to reimbursement for taxes and maintenance paid while in possession | N/A | AAM seeks reimbursement for taxes and lawn maintenance paid after acquisition | Denied: AAM failed to prove amounts with specificity, did not counterclaim, and equities do not favor reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Mozer, 108 Ohio St. 30 (Ohio 1923) (describing lis pendens requisites and effect)
- Gleason v. Gleason, 64 Ohio App.3d 667 (Ohio Ct. App.) (land contracts generally warrant specific performance because damages are inadequate)
- Katz v. Banning, 84 Ohio App.3d 543 (Ohio Ct. App.) (lis pendens protects status quo; suits for lost business opportunity differ from suits affecting title)
- DeSantis v. Soller, 70 Ohio App.3d 226 (Ohio Ct. App.) (specific performance denied where third‑party conveyance predated suit and property materially altered)
- Fehrman v. Ellison, 32 Ohio App.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App.) (denial of specific performance where third‑party conveyance preceded suit)
- Dartron Corp. v. Uniroyal Chem. Co., 917 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ohio) (specific performance inappropriate for collateral contractual obligations where money damages adequate)
- Cincinnati ex rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C., 150 Ohio App.3d 728 (Ohio Ct. App.) (distinguishing monetary claims from property interests for lis pendens purposes)
- Bradford v. Reid, 126 Ohio App.3d 448 (Ohio Ct. App.) (an action seeking only money damages does not invoke lis pendens)
- Levin v. George Fraam & Sons, Inc., 65 Ohio App.3d 841 (Ohio Ct. App.) (final judgment determines priority of rights; lis pendens preserves rights during litigation)