WesBanco Bank, Inc. v. Facility Solutions Group, Inc.
1:24-cv-00601
S.D. OhioAug 19, 2025Background
- WesBanco Bank extended a $5 million credit line to Eco Engineering, secured by Eco’s assets and perfected by a financing statement.
- Eco defaulted on the loan almost immediately, failing to pay after acceleration, leading WesBanco to obtain a judgment and right to the collateral in state court.
- Before default, Eco transferred nearly all of the collateral assets to Facility Solutions Group (FSG) without WesBanco’s consent, despite the loan documents prohibiting such transfers.
- FSG began operating out of Eco’s location, employing the collateral and actively diverting asset value (e.g., directing customers not to pay WesBanco).
- WesBanco filed suit against FSG for possession and damages, alleging multiple claims including conversion, theft, tortious interference, and impairment of collateral; FSG moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion | FSG wrongfully possesses and uses collateral to which WesBanco has rights. | WesBanco lacks specific facts and right to immediate possession. | Adequately pleaded; survives dismissal. |
| Civil Damages for Theft (Ohio statute) | FSG committed a theft offense by knowingly taking collateral w/o consent. | No plausible allegation of a theft offense under Ohio law. | Adequately pleaded; survives dismissal. |
| Tortious Interference with Contract | FSG intentionally interfered, knowing of the contract and security interest. | No sufficient pleading of knowledge, intent, or lack of justification. | Adequately pleaded; survives dismissal. |
| Impairment of Collateral | FSG’s actions lessened value of WesBanco’s security; actual damages pled. | No specific wrongful act; hasn't shown inability to collect elsewhere. | Adequately pleaded; survives dismissal. |
| Constructive Trust/Injunctive Relief | Proper equitable remedies if substantive claims succeed. | Not standalone claims, should be dismissed. | Not claims; availability reserved. |
| More Definite Statement | Pleadings are sufficient, factual allegations clear. | Complaint too vague to answer properly. | Motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) motions)
- Keene Grp., Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 998 F.3d 306 (pleading standards for plausible claims)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 707 N.E.2d 853 (elements for tortious interference under Ohio law)
- First Fin. Bank v. Fox Cap. Grp., Inc., 692 F. Supp. 3d 762 (pleading conversion under Ohio law)
- Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272 (requirements for sufficient pleadings at 12(b)(6) stage)