LISA M. CANTER Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- DONALD G. WOLFE Defendant-Appellant
Case No. 15 CA 64
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 8, 2016
2016-Ohio-5300
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 13 CV 743; JUDGMENT: Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
For
MICHAEL P. VASKO
19 North High Street
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
For Defendant-Appellant
DALE M. MUSILLI
105 Sturges Avenue
Mansfield, Ohio 44903
Wise, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Donald G. Wolfe appeals from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, which granted a directed verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Lisa M. Canter on a counterclaim filed by appellant seeking return of a diamond ring he had given to appellee during their relationship. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
{¶2} Appellee and appellant became involved in a romantic relationship in 2006. The two began cohabitating in approximately August 2007.
{¶3} In October 2008, appellant bought for appellee a 1.47 carat diamond ring, retailed at approximately $13,000.00, from JB Robinson Jewelers in the Eastland Mall. It appears undisputed the purchase was made in the engagement ring section of the jewelry store.
{¶4} The parties ended their relationship in August 2013.
{¶5} On September 5, 2013, appellee filed a partition and/or quiet title action in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, regarding the house they had shared on Lithopolis Road in Carroll, Ohio.
{¶6} On November 1, 2013, appellant filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging (1) promissory estoppel as to an oral contract for the sale of the aforesaid real estate and (2) conversion of the aforesaid ring claimed to be given to appellee in contemplation of marriage.
{¶7} On October, 21, 2014, the Huntington National Bank (“HNB“), as mortgagee, joined as a party and filed an answer and cross-claim in reformation, seeking foreclosure. On July 2, 2015, HNB filed an amended answer, counterclaim, and cross-claim. On August 20, 2015, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of HNB on its counterclaim (against appellee) and its cross-claim (against appellant).
{¶8} The parties presently agree that the aforesaid events left one remaining matter for litigation, that being appellant‘s aforesaid second counterclaim concerning the ring, which proceeded to a bench trial on October 29, 2015.
{¶9} During the trial, at the conclusion of appellant‘s case, appellee moved for a directed verdict pursuant to
{¶10} On December 11, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the following five Assignments of Error:
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF APPELLEE‘S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT PURSUANT TO OHIO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50(A) AT THE END OF THE DEFENDANT APPELLANTS [SIC] CASE IN CHIEF.
{¶12} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE PLAINTIFF APPELLEES [SIC] MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO OHIO LAW ON CONDITIONAL GIFTS OF ENGAGEMENT RINGS IN CONTEMPLATION OF MARRIAGE AND IT IS ALSO TOTALLY AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
{¶13} “III. THE FACT THAT THE DONOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT PURCHASED AN ENGAGEMENT RING AND A WEDDING BAND WHICH HE GIFTED TO THE PLAINTIFF APPELLEE DOES NOT NEGATE THE PLAINTIFF APPELLEE‘S OBLIGATION TO RETURN BOTH THE ENGAGEMENT RING AS WELL AS THE WEDDING/ENHANCER RING AS BOTH WERE GIFTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF MARRIAGE WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP IS TERMINATED AND NO MARRIAGE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES.
{¶14} “IV. THERE WAS UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT WHICH IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS [SIC] FINDINGS THAT THE COURT WOULD IMPUTE THAT THE PARTIES HAD ENTERED INTO A MUTUAL ACQUIESCENCE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ENGAGEMENT RING WAS NOT EXPECTED TO BE RETURNED AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THEIR FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT.
{¶15} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED ERROR IN SUSTAINING THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WHEN THE EVIDENCE CONSTRUED MOST STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT APPELLANT AND WHERE REASONABLE MINDS COULD COME TO MORE THAN ONE CONCLUSION AND ONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS WAS THE ENGAGEMENT RING WAS GIVEN TO PLAINTIFF APPELLEE IN CONTEMPLATION OF MARRIAGE AND SINCE SHE NEVER MARRIED DEFENDANT APPELLANT THE RINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT ABSENT ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY THAT THE ENGAGEMENT RING AND THE WEDDING BAND/ENHANCER RING WERE NOT TO BE RETURNED TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ESPECIALLY AFTER
I., II., III., IV., V.
{¶16} In his five Assignments of Error, appellant maintains on various grounds the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of appellee at the close of appellant‘s presentation of evidence on his counterclaim regarding the disputed ring. We disagree.
{¶17}
{¶18} However, we have recognized that in cases involving a bench trial, the rule governing directed verdicts is not applicable. See, e.g., Williams v. Williams, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 2010-CA-0006, 2011-Ohio-1200, ¶13 (additional citations omitted). Instead, “[i]n a bench trial, a defendant seeking a favorable disposition after the close of the plaintiff‘s case must move to dismiss under the rule governing involuntary dismissal in non-jury actions.” Id. Thus, “[t]he involuntary dismissal of non-jury actions comes *** within the scope of
{¶19} A trial court‘s ruling on a
{¶20} In Lyle v. Durham (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 1, 473 N.E.2d 1216, the First
{¶21} Our research reveals no specific citations in the Fifth District to the aforesaid rule of Lyle. However, in Knotts v. Flynn, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 97AP060036, 1998 WL 172623 (Jan. 22, 1998), we cited the Tenth District‘s decision in Sigrist v. Lyons (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 252, 653 N.E.2d 744, for the proposition that “where a gift is given with a mutual understanding that the parties would be married and the gift would benefit the marriage, then if the parties do not marry, unjust enrichment requires the gift be returned.” Id., citing Sigrist at 254, (citations deleted).2
{¶22} In the case sub judice, appellant‘s case-in-chief on his counterclaim consisted of three witnesses: Appellee Lisa Canter called as if on cross-examination; appellant‘s sister, Dawn Coleman; and appellant himself. The record indicates appellee agreed that she wore the ring on the ring finger of her left hand. Tr. at 24. She testified that she almost always wore the ring, taking it off only at night. Tr. at 26-27. However, she denied ever discussing the topic of marriage with appellee. Tr. at 25. Appellee suggested that during their relationship, other expensive gifting was accomplished. For example, appellee also bought appellant a ring at one point. Id.
{¶23} Appellant‘s sister, Dawn, told the court she had first met appellee about five or six years earlier. At that meeting, appellant introduced appellee as “his fiancée.” Tr. at 31. Dawn also recalled introducing appellant and appellee about two years before the trial, at a birthday party, as “her brother and his fiancée Lisa.” Appellee did not correct her. Tr. at 31-32. Dawn observed that appellee wore the ring all the time, “usually” with the wedding band. Tr. at 32, 41. She also testified that she was part of several discussions where marriage was discussed, and at one point, appellant and appellee discussed getting married in Ireland. Tr. at 34-35. (In contrast, appellee had denied any talk of marriage, in Ireland or elsewhere. See Tr. at 20, 25.) According to Dawn, a prior owner had coincidentally installed a door plate at the shared residence with his last name, Wolfe, inscribed thereon. Dawn recalled appellee telling her that “[t]hey
{¶24} Finally, appellant‘s version of events was that he had asked appellee to get married at the time they picked out the ring, to which appellee responded “it‘s a heck of a time to have a proposal in a jewelry store.” Tr. at 55. He opined that because both of them had had prior marriages, “we was kind of a little gun shy.” Tr. at 66. Appellant claimed that he had once purchased tickets for Ireland, about five years ago. Tr. at 78. Nonetheless, the overall trial evidence was consistent that no formal public announcement was ever made of an engagement for marriage, nor did the parties set a wedding date or make concrete plans for a ceremony or reception, despite their long cohabitation.
{¶25} Upon review of the record, despite the conflicting testimony, we find no error as a matter of law in the trial court‘s interpretation of the gift of the ring as being outside the scope of an engagement, and we are not inclined to find the court‘s determinations under
{¶26} Appellant‘s First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶27} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Farmer, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0722