Woehler v. Brandenburg
2012 Ohio 5355
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Divorce in 2004; Cristi lived with the children on Cristi's property titled in Cristi's name.
- 2007 agreement: Cristi added Mark to title, Mark to aid mortgage; Cristi to pay mortgage/taxes/insurance and notify 30-day delinquencies; 90-day delinquency triggers conveyance to Mark.
- 2008 agreement: Mark to make $1,800 monthly mortgage payment on one of two mortgages; Cristi would withdraw child-support modification; 2008 obligations end if Cristi files another modification.
- February 2010: Cristi records Mark's quitclaim deed as part of 2007 agreement.
- July 2010: Mark files breach action alleging Cristi defaulted >90 days and seeking specific performance and damages.
- November 2011: trial court awards attorney fees to Mark, denies expectancy and consequential damages; appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are expectancy damages recoverable for breach of the 2007 agreement? | Woehler seeks expectancy damages ($56,219.18) | Court should limit damages to pre-breach position; no funds expended | No; court affirmed denial of expectancy damages. |
| Are consequential damages for lost refinancing opportunity recoverable? | Woehler claims $14,550 for credit/different loan terms | Damages speculative; insufficient proof of credit impact | No; court affirmed denial of consequential damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Longo Constr., Inc. v. ASAP Tech. Serv., Inc., 140 Ohio App.3d 665 (8th Dist.2000) (purpose of expectation interest; damages must reflect loss from breach)
- Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 105 Ohio St.3d 476 (2005-Ohio-2974) (establishes framework for breach damages in Ohio)
- Brads v. First Baptist Church of Germantown, Ohio, 89 Ohio App.3d 328 (2d Dist.1993) (damages tied to actual injury; not mere breach)
- Textron Fin. Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 137 (9th Dist.1996) (damages must correspond to injuries resulting from breach; reasonable certainty)
- TJX Cos., Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App.3d 236 (8th Dist.2009) (reasonable basis for computing damages; not absolute exactness)
- Accurate Die Casting Co. v. Cleveland, 2 Ohio App.3d 386 (8th Dist.1981) (uncertainty is about existence of damages, not amount)
- The Toledo Group, Inc. v. Benton Indus., Inc., 87 Ohio App.3d 798 (6th Dist.1993) (nominal damages framework when no actual loss shown)
- Lacey v. Laird, 166 Ohio St. 12 (1956) (nominal damages principle)