Wright v. Heller
102 N.E.3d 1285
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2009 Bank of America (BOA) foreclosed on the Wrights’ home; the Wrights left personal property in the house after the sheriff’s sale to BOA.
- BOA/servicer sent multiple written notices and posted a personal-property notice giving the Wrights a deadline to remove belongings; the Wrights did not retrieve them.
- A broker (Atteberry) made offers to repurchase in early 2010; BOA’s paralegal instructed that furniture remain with the house pending sale and directed future negotiations to Huff Realty’s agent Tom Singer.
- BOA sold the property to Joseph and Tracy Heller in July 2010; the Hellers moved in, discarded trash, donated some items, and kept others.
- The Wrights first sued BOA in federal court for breach, negligence, and fraud; the district court granted summary judgment to BOA, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.
- The Wrights then sued the Hellers, Huff Realty, Huff agents (Singer, Parchman), Nationwide, and others for conversion, replevin, and unjust enrichment; defendants moved for summary judgment based on res judicata (claim preclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Wrights' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims against non-BOA defendants are barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) | Wrights: prior federal suit against BOA did not preclude new claims against different parties who were not parties to that suit | Defendants: res judicata bars any claim that was or could have been raised against BOA and those in privity with BOA | Court: res judicata (claim preclusion) bars the Wrights’ claims because defendants are in privity with BOA |
| Whether Huff Realty and agents Singer/Parchman are in privity with BOA | Wrights: Huff/agents contracted with BOA’s servicer (Chase), not BOA, so no privity | Defendants: Chase is BOA’s servicing agent; Huff/agents acted as BOA’s agents and shared mutual interest in the sale | Court: Huff, Singer, and Parchman are in privity with BOA (agency and mutuality of interest) |
| Whether the Hellers (purchasers) are in privity with BOA | Wrights: conversion claim not raised against BOA; Hellers are distinct and cannot be bound by BOA judgment | Defendants: successive ownership of the property establishes privity; claim could have been raised earlier | Court: Hellers are in privity as succeeding owners; res judicata applies |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on res judicata defense | Wrights: factual disputes prevent summary judgment | Defendants: undisputed record shows prior judgment and privity elements satisfied | Court: summary judgment affirmed — no genuine dispute of material fact on claim-preclusion elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1990) (party must present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred)
- Rogers v. Whitehall, 25 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1986) (final judgment conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated)
- O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2007) (explaining claim- and issue-preclusion doctrines)
- Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245 (Ohio 2000) (privity is a flexible concept; mutuality of interest may create privity)
- City of Columbus v. Union Cemetery Assn., 45 Ohio St.2d 47 (Ohio 1976) (successive ownership interests can establish privity)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (nonparty preclusion justified by substantive legal relationships between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment)