Guzzetta v. GuzzettaGuzzetta v. Guzzetta
Dickinson Wright PLLC, and Jonathan R. Secrest, David A. Lockshaw, Jr., and Manuel D. Cardona, for appellee Jackson National Life Insurance Company.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, Susan Guzzetta and Bryce Guzzetta, appeal the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Jackson“), in this case in which they allege an interference with their inheritance. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial
Introduction
{¶ 2} Susan and Bryce are descendants of Dr. Franklin H. Guzzetta, who passed away on March 3, 2019. Franklin, a long-time resident of Butler County, Ohio, was 85 years old at the time of his passing. Franklin was survived by his wife, Fay, as well as his two adult children, and his three adult grandchildren. Susan is one of Franklin‘s two surviving adult children, whereas Bryce is one of Franklin‘s three surviving adult grandchildren.1 There is no dispute that Franklin suffered from memory loss, late-stage dementia, and Alzheimer‘s disease in the approximate two years leading to his death. There is also no dispute that, prior to the onset of those conditions, a power of attorney was executed that included Franklin‘s notarized signature and driver‘s license naming his other surviving adult child, Susan‘s brother and Bryce‘s uncle, Robert Guzzetta, as his primary agent.
{¶ 3} During his lifetime, Franklin established five annuity accounts with Jackson.2 The five accounts Franklin established with Jackson were given the last four digits of 8529, 4991, 9876, 4501, and 5850. There is no dispute that, on the applications executed by Franklin to establish each of those five accounts, Franklin checked a box authorizing Jackson “to accept fund transfers/allocation changes via telephone, internet, or other electronic medium” from either himself or his then financial representative, Kevin Flynn, “subject to Jackson‘s administrative procedures.” There is also no dispute that Jackson included on each of the five applications Franklin executed a provision that stated, in pertinent part, the following:
Jackson has administrative procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurances that telephone/electronic authorizations are genuine. If Jackson fails to employ such procedures, it may be held liable for losses resulting from a failure to use such procedures.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 5} On September 30, 2021, Susan and Bryce (hereinafter, the “Guzzettas“) filed a complaint naming Jackson as a defendant.4 The Guzzettas’ complaint contained
{¶ 6} Of those 18 separate counts, the Guzzettas set forth several causes of action targeting Jackson by name. This included Count 4, conversion, in paragraphs 1001 through 1009, Count 14, negligence, in paragraphs 1116 through 1123, and Count 18, a cause of action the Guzzettas’ entitled “Bad Faith,” in paragraphs 1171 through 1176. The most significant of those causes of action, however, was set forth in Count 13, breach of contract, which stated, in its entirety, the following:
COUNT XIII
(Breach of Contract)
1073. Plaintiffs reallege the above allegations as if fully rewritten herein.
1074. Franklin Guzzetta had five valid contracts with Jackson.
1075. Plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of Franklin‘s Jackson Accounts.
1076. Jackson owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Franklin, Plaintiff, Susan Guzzetta, and Plaintiff, Bryce Guzzetta.
1077. Jackson breached this duty when it allowed an unauthorized user to make unauthorized transfers and
1078. Plaintiffs incurred damages resulting proximately from Jackson‘s breaches.
{¶ 7} On December 15, 2021, Jackson filed a
{¶ 8} On March 31, 2022, the trial court issued a decision that granted Jackson‘s
[T]he context clearly demonstrates that Plaintiffs were relying upon promises made by Jackson when Franklin opened his accounts, to wit: that “Jackson has administrative procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurances that telephone/electronic authorizations are genuine. If Jackson fails to employ such procedures, it may be held liable for losses resulting from a failure to use such procedures...” When Plaintiffs further alleged Jackson breached its duty when it “allowed an unauthorized user to make unauthorized transfers and changes” to the accounts—although unartful—they have undoubtedly set forth a claim for breach of contract, sufficiently enough that Jackson has notice of the actions for which Plaintiffs are seeking redress.
{¶ 9} On April 22, 2022, Jackson filed its answer as to the Guzzettas’ breach of contract claim making a general, blanket denial of any wrongdoing. This included Jackson generally denying the Guzzettas’ allegations set forth in Count 13 of their complaint reproduced above. Several weeks later, on May 10, 2022, Jackson moved the trial court to reconsider its decision to deny its
{¶ 10} On April 3, 2023, the Guzzettas and Jackson filed competing motions for summary judgment in accordance with
{¶ 11} On June 15, 2023, the Guzzettas filed a notice of appeal from the trial court‘s June 12, 2023 decision. This appeal was assigned Case No. CA2023-06-064. Shortly thereafter, on June 23, 2023, the trial court issued an order transferring the case to the Butler County Probate Court for further proceedings. In so doing, the trial court explained that this transfer was done “for the express purpose of determining whether Plaintiffs have any adequate relief that must be exhausted in that forum as set forth herein,” and, based upon that finding, “whether any part of this action should be concluded there, as well.”
{¶ 12} On June 28, 2023, the Guzzettas filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court requesting a visiting judge be appointed to oversee the remainder of the case. The Guzzettas filed this affidavit due to the Butler County probate court judge having previously represented Susan‘s brother and Bryce‘s uncle, Robert, in this action prior to his election to the bench. Two days later, on June 30, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an entry that removed “any authority” of the probate court judge, and all other Butler County trial court judges, “to preside in the proceeding until the Chief Justice rules on the [Guzzettas’ affidavit of disqualification].” That same day, also on June 30, 2023, the trial court issued an amended nunc pro tunc decision to add
{¶ 13} On July 21, 2023, the Guzzettas filed a notice of appeal from the trial court‘s
{¶ 14} On December 18, 2023, oral argument was held before this court. The Guzzettas’ appeal now properly before this court for decision, the Guzzettas have raised one assignment of error for review.
The Guzzettas’ Single Assignment of Error
{¶ 15} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING ITS AMENDED NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND GRANTING DEFENDANT JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
{¶ 16} In their single assignment of error, the Guzzettas argue the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Jackson on their breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
{¶ 17} “Summary judgment is a procedural device used to terminate litigation when
Summary Judgment Review Pursuant to Civ.R. 56
{¶ 18} ”
{¶ 19} “The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Berkheimer v. REKM, LLC, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-03-026, 2023-Ohio-116, ¶ 18, citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292 (1996). “Once this burden is met, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts showing there is some genuine issue of material fact yet remaining for the trier of fact to resolve.” Sullivan v. Mercy Health, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-02-023, 2022-Ohio-4445, ¶ 21. That is to say, the nonmoving party may not simply rest on “the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings.” Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Sexton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-11-288, 2010-Ohio-4802, ¶ 7, citing
The Guzzettas’ Arguments and Analysis
{¶ 20} The Guzzettas raise a litany of issues in support of their single assignment of error. Among them, the Guzzettas argue that rather than the summary judgment
{¶ 21} In its summary judgment motion, Jackson argued that it was entitled to judgment on the Guzzettas’ breach of contract claim because “there is simply no evidence to suggest the disbursements Jackson made breached any contractual obligations.” This included, most notably, the contractual provision set forth above that:
Jackson has administrative procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurances that telephone/electronic authorizations are genuine. If Jackson fails to employ such procedures, it may be held liable for losses resulting from a failure to use such procedures.
{¶ 22} To support this claim, Jackson argued that rather than creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it had committed a breach of contract, the evidence instead clearly demonstrated that it was “obligated by contract to make disbursements requested by the contract holder,” Franklin, many of which Jackson argued it had received directly from Franklin himself, either orally or in writing. This included several transactions that were accompanied by a medallion signature guarantee indicating the signature purporting to be Franklin‘s was genuine.5 Jackson noted that the same was true as it
related to the various change in death benefits and beneficiary designations that Franklin had made to his accounts prior to his death. Therefore, because it was doing nothing more than following through on the requests that Franklin himself had made, something which it did after employing and/or using its administrative procedures designed to provide reasonable assurances that telephone/electronic authorizations from Franklin were, in fact, genuine, Jackson argued that, as a matter of law, it was entitled to judgment on the Guzzettas’ breach of contract claim.
{¶ 23} The Guzzettas responded to Jackson‘s summary judgment motion by arguing that the oral and written authorizations Franklin had supposedly provided to Jackson were, in actuality, “largely the product of forgery and impersonation” by his son, Robert, and not “genuine and authentic” requests made by Franklin. However, even assuming this were true, the Guzzettas provided no evidence to demonstrate how this fact, standing alone, constituted a breach of contract on the part of Jackson that would entitle them to relief. That is to say, outside of their own speculation and conjecture as to what they believe Jackson should have done to combat against Robert‘s purported fraud, which, as set forth in their complaint, included Jackson conducting a full blown investigation into the area codes and IP addresses from which Franklin‘s telephone and internet activity had supposedly originated, the Guzzettas provided no evidence to indicate that Jackson had not employed and/or used the administrative procedures it had in place to provide reasonable assurances that the telephone/electronic authorizations it received from Franklin were genuine. That Jackson may have been wrong in its determination is immaterial, so long as Jackson acted in conformance with its contractual
{¶ 24} For these reasons, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision granting summary judgment to Jackson on the Guzzettas’ breach of contract claim. Whether Robert may have engaged in fraud is a question of fact for the Guzzettas’ claims against Robert, not Jackson. We also find no error in the trial court‘s decision granting summary judgment to Jackson on Guzzettas’ claim alleging a breach of good faith and fair dealing. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is integral to any contract. Krukrubo v. Fifth Third Bank, 10th Dist. Franklin 07AP-270, 2007-Ohio-7007, ¶ 19. “Outside of the insurance context, the breach of this duty does not exist as a separate cause of action from a breach of contract claim.” Ireton v. JTD Realty Invs., LLC, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2010-04-023, 2011-Ohio-670, ¶ 51. “‘Rather, the action arises from the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract and cannot stand alone from the contract claim.‘” Adena at Miami Bluffs Condo Owners’ Assoc. v. Woodward, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-08-044, 2021-Ohio-3872, ¶ 29, quoting Walton v. Residential Fin. Corp., 151 Ohio Misc.2d 28, 2009-Ohio-1872, ¶ 10 (C.P.). Therefore, because the Guzzettas’ breach of contract claim must fail, so too must the Guzzettas’ claim alleging a breach of good faith and fair dealing. The Guzzettas’ claim otherwise lacks merit.
The Guzzettas’ Renewed Motions to Remand Their Appeals
{¶ 25} Within their appellate brief, the Guzzettas have requested this court revisit our August 8, 2023 decision denying their motions to remand their appeals to the trial court due to this court‘s alleged lack of jurisdiction for want of a final appealable order. We decline the Guzzettas’ renewed request. We instead reiterate our previous decision and find, once again, that “[t]his court has jurisdiction over both of these appeals at the
{¶ 26} In reaching this decision, we note that it is well established that a trial court has inherent common law authority to correct errors, nunc pro tunc, so that the record speaks the truth. See Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. Kohn, 133 Ohio St. 111, 113 (1937) (“courts possess inherent common-law power to enter judgments or orders nunc pro tunc in proper cases“). “Errors subject to correction by the court include a clerical error, mistake, or omission that is mechanical in nature and apparent on the record and do not involve a legal decision or judgment.” Gauthier v. Gauthier, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-09-098 and CA2018-09-099, ¶ 70, citing State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, ¶ 15. The record in this case is clear that the trial court‘s failure to include a
Conclusion
{¶ 28} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.