2013 Ohio 4949
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Stebbins Plumbing provided nine days of plumbing work at Alex’s Restaurant in June 2010 at the request of the restaurant manager, Reece Powers; Alex Pragalos (sole shareholder of Alex Inc.) did not authorize or pay for the work but knew renovations were occurring.
- The real property was owned half by Alex Pragalos and half by the Carmela Pragalos Revocable Living Trust; Alex later transferred his half to the Trust.
- Stebbins first sued Alex Inc.; the municipal court granted summary judgment against Alex Inc. for $8,678.16 on unjust enrichment in February 2012; Stebbins’ motion to add Alex Pragalos individually was denied and Pragalos learned of that suit only in February 2012.
- Stebbins then sued Alex Pragalos individually and as Trustee of the Trust; the municipal court entered judgment against Pragalos (individually and as Trustee) for $8,678.16 on unjust enrichment.
- On appeal, Pragalos argued (1) res judicata barred the second suit because it involved the same claim arising from the same transaction and (2) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second suit | Stebbins: prior judgment against Alex Inc. should preclude relitigation of the same unjust enrichment claim | Pragalos: he (individually and as Trustee) is not the same party nor in privity with Alex Inc.; therefore res judicata does not apply | Res judicata does not apply; Pragalos (individually/Trustee) not in privity with Alex Inc.; even if technical privity existed, fairness/justice would bar application |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on unjust enrichment | Stebbins: owners (Pragalos) received and retained benefit (improvements) with knowledge, so unjust enrichment established | Pragalos: improvements were done at Powers’ expense and did not enhance property value; affidavits suggest factual dispute | No genuine issue; summary judgment for Stebbins affirmed — owners knew of and retained the benefits, rendering retention unjust without payment |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 862 N.E.2d 803 (Ohio 2007) (defines privity principles for claim preclusion)
- Brown v. Dayton, 730 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio 2000) (discusses when individuals raising identical claims may be in privity)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (limitations on prior privity rules)
- Keeley & Assoc., Inc. v. Integrity Supply, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (closely held corporation/shareholder privity analyzed on case-specific facts)