2016 Ohio 7683
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Grant Troja sued the Pleatmans for specific performance after they tried to terminate a contract to buy his Indian Hill property at 8625 Pipewell Lane.
- The Pleatmans discovered that a convicted violent offender (Benjamin White) had moved in next door after his 2013 release; they refused to close and sued Sibcy Cline (their real-estate broker) for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and civil conspiracy as third-party defendants.
- Sibcy Cline moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it and denied the Pleatmans’ partial summary-judgment motion. The Pleatmans later settled with Troja midtrial.
- The Pleatmans sought reconsideration based on trial testimony from a Sibcy Cline executive; the trial court denied reconsideration and also imposed sanctions on the Pleatmans for frivolous conduct relating to harassing communications by Crysta Pleatman.
- The Pleatmans appealed the summary-judgment and reconsideration rulings; Sibcy Cline cross-appealed the denial of its motion to strike the newly proffered testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sibcy Cline breached a fiduciary duty by failing to disclose that a convicted criminal lived next door | Pleatmans: Sibcy Cline had a fiduciary duty to disclose material nonconfidential facts about neighborhood safety and failed to do so | Sibcy Cline: The neighbor’s criminal history was not a material fact relating to the subject property and agents did not know the fact; contract and disclosures put due diligence on buyer | Court: No duty to disclose nonmaterial offsite information; no evidence agents knew falsehoods; summary judgment for Sibcy Cline affirmed |
| Whether trial testimony elicited after summary judgment required reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling | Pleatmans: New trial testimony (office VP) shows issues of fact about agency knowledge/control, meriting reconsideration | Sibcy Cline: Motion to reconsider filed after long delay; testimony cannot be imputed to showing agent’s knowledge; court may deny reconsideration | Court: Reconsideration properly denied; testimony did not create material factual dispute sufficient to disturb summary judgment |
| Whether Busam’s knowledge (senior broker) can be imputed to the showing agent (Comisar) | Pleatmans: Busam knew White lived next door; her knowledge imputes to Sibcy Cline and creates factual dispute | Sibcy Cline: Comisar did not have actual knowledge; Busam did not directly control/comisar; knowledge not imputed | Court: Busam’s knowledge not imputed to Comisar; no basis to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether sanctions for Pleatmans’ conduct were erroneous or violated free-speech rights | Pleatmans: Sanctions (attorney fees and punitive damages) punished protected speech and were not for frivolous conduct | Sibcy Cline: Sanctions were proper for repeated harassment and frivolous conduct | Court: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review sanctions portion because appeal of that order was untimely; that part of the appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (elements of a fiduciary-duty claim)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary-judgment standard)
- Allison v. Cook, 139 Ohio App.3d 473 (statutory duties of real-estate licensees do not replace common-law fiduciary duties)
- Hannah v. Sibcy Cline Realtors, 147 Ohio App.3d 198 (dual-agent disclosure duties and limits on disclosure of offsite matters)
- Levert-Hill v. Associated Holding Group, LLC, 975 N.E.2d 575 (dual-agent duties to disclose nonconfidential material information)