Zukerman, Lear & Murray Co. v. Snyder
2021 Ohio 2314
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Charles Snyder, former CEO of a tech firm, was criminally convicted (tax and embezzlement charges) and ordered to pay restitution.
- Law firm Zukerman represented Charles and billed $337,618.26; it was paid $265,151, leaving $72,467.26 unpaid.
- Zukerman sued Charles and his wife Michelle asserting claims on account, unjust enrichment, and a claim against Michelle under the "necessaries" doctrine for attorney fees.
- Michelle moved to dismiss the necessaries claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted the motion and later added Civ.R. 54(B) language nunc pro tunc.
- Zukerman appealed the dismissal of the necessaries claim; the appellate court raised, sua sponte, whether the order was a final, appealable order.
- The court held the necessaries claim against Michelle depended on Charles' liability and therefore touched the same facts as the remaining claims; it dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial-court dismissal of the necessaries claim is a final, appealable order | The dismissal affects a substantial right and disposes of a distinct branch; Civ.R. 54(B) makes it appealable | The remaining claims against Charles share the same facts and liability is contingent; the order is not final | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order (order not separate/distinct) |
| Whether criminal-defense legal services are "necessaries" making a spouse liable | Legal fees for criminal defense qualify as necessaries (Zukerman’s claim) | Michelle: legal services for criminal defense are not recoverable under the necessaries doctrine / insufficient as a stand‑alone basis | Merits not reached; court did not decide whether criminal-defense fees are necessaries because of jurisdictional dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. Friedman, 20 Ohio St.2d 49 (1969) (recognizes spouse liability for "necessaries," including certain legal fees)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (partial judgments must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) to be final)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 49 Ohio St.2d 158 (1977) (purpose of Civ.R. 54(B) is to balance piecemeal appeals and delay injustice)
- Salata v. Vallas, 159 Ohio App.3d 108 (2004) (partial adjudication is not appealable under Civ.R. 54(B) when unresolved claims arise from same facts)