2021 Ohio 3678
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Property at 4832 E. 135th St. (owned by deceased Roosevelt Wagner Sr.) was subject to tax-certificate foreclosure; Woods Cove III (later TLOA) pursued foreclosure.
- In Aug. 2016 Vauss (daughter) negotiated an oral redemption/payment plan with Woods/Davenport: $2,000 down and monthly payments of $755.42 for 36 months; she agreed not to object to judgment if she timely paid.
- Woods mailed a written redemption agreement Vauss did not sign; she did sign and return an ACH authorization and Davenport debited payments from Sept. 2016–Jan. 2018.
- By Jan. 2018 the tax certificates were assigned to TLOA; TLOA later sought additional attorney fees and sent payoff quotes; Vauss sued to enforce the original agreement and asserted promissory estoppel and related claims.
- After a bench trial the magistrate found an enforceable oral contract and ordered Vauss to pay the remaining balance ($10,400.60) and TLOA to deliver the tax certificates on payment. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- TLOA appealed, arguing (1) the oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds and the unsigned written agreement controlled, and (2) interest continued accruing after Jan. 2018 and Vauss breached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TLOA) | Defendant's Argument (Vauss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the oral payment agreement is barred by the Statute of Frauds and the unsigned written contract controls | The agreement concerns an interest in land and therefore must be in writing; the unsigned written plan should govern | There was an enforceable oral agreement evidenced by performance (ACH form, debited payments), and partial performance removes the agreement from the statute of frauds | Court rejected TLOA’s challenge: TLOA forfeited the statute-of-frauds argument by not objecting to the magistrate; even on merits partial performance would prevent application of the statute; oral contract enforced |
| Whether interest continued accruing after Jan. 2018 and Vauss is liable for additional interest/fees | R.C. 5721.38 requires interest to redeem tax certificates; Vauss’s failure to continue payments after TLOA denied the agreement makes her liable for accrued interest | Vauss performed under the agreed plan through Jan. 2018; TLOA’s refusal to honor the agreement does not entitle it to additional interest beyond the agreed balance | Court overruled TLOA’s argument: TLOA forfeited the issue by not objecting to the magistrate, and no plain error found; court ordered only the agreed remaining balance paid |
| Effect of procedural forfeiture under Civ.R. 53 on appellate issues | (Implicit) raised only specific objections to magistrate; did not assert statute-of-frauds or interest accrual arguments below | Failure to timely, specifically object to magistrate decision forfeits those issues on appeal; only plain error exceptions apply | Court enforced Civ.R. 53(D)(3) forfeiture: issues not raised in objections were forfeited; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (bench-trial findings presumed correct; manifest-weight standard).
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed).
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (2008) (questions of law reviewed de novo).
- 3637 Green Rd. Co. v. Specialized Component Sales Co., 69 N.E.3d 1083 (2016) (discussing partial performance exception to statute of frauds).
- Blain's Folding Serv. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 109 N.E.3d 177 (2018) (statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that may be waived if not pleaded).
- Delfino v. Paul Davies Chevrolet, Inc., 2 Ohio St.2d 282 (1965) (acts constituting partial performance must be unequivocal and exclusively referable to the agreement).
- F. Ents., Inc. v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp., 47 Ohio St.2d 154 (1976) (measure of contract damages aims to place non-breaching party in position had contract been performed).
- Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220 (1985) (plain-error doctrine is narrow; applied only in exceptional circumstances).