McOmber v. Liebrecht , 2023 Ohio 2019 ( 2023 )

[Cite as McOmber v. Liebrecht, 2023-Ohio-2019.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
VAN WERT COUNTY
MICHAEL K. MCOMBER, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, CASE NO. 15-22-05
v.
WESLEY M. LIEBRECHT, ET AL.,
OPINION
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CV-20-08-068
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: June 20, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Steven L. Diller for Appellants
Matthew M. Mitchell for Appellees
Case No. 15-22-05
MILLER, P.J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Michael McOmber and McOmber Land, LLC
(collectively the “McOmber Parties”), appeal the August 23, 2022 judgment of the
Van Wert County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion for summary
judgment of defendants-appellees, Wesley and Brooke Liebrecht. For the reasons
that follow, we reverse.
I. Background
A. Factual History
{¶2} Michael McOmber and Wesley Liebrecht first became acquainted
while the two worked together at the Eaton Corporation. In time, Wesley began
assisting McOmber with his grain farming operation, which McOmber conducted
under McOmber Land, LLC.
{¶3} In 2009, Wesley approached McOmber with a written proposal to
jointly enter into a cattle production farm. McOmber and Wesley went back and
forth about the specifics of the proposed operation, but they eventually agreed to
move forward. Defendant-appellee, L & M Ag, LLC (“L & M”), was incorporated
as the business entity for the cattle farm. McOmber was the sole member of L &
M.
{¶4} Beginning in 2009, numerous loans were taken out to finance
operations at the cattle farm. McOmber was the sole signatory on these loans. The
-2-
Case No. 15-22-05
loans were used to purchase cattle, buy equipment for the farm, and build a livestock
barn, among other things. The barn itself was owned by McOmber personally but
was located on property owned by Wesley and his wife, Brooke Liebrecht.
{¶5} In the years that followed, Wesley actively managed the cattle farm
while McOmber assumed a passive role. During this time, Wesley also engaged in
several other side ventures under various business entities, including defendants-
appellees, Slinger Trucking Services, LLC (“Slinger Trucking”) and Prairie Creek
Farms, LLC (“Prairie Creek”). Furthermore, Wesley organized another entity,
Cover Crop Seeders LLC, that utilized a sprayer that was purchased with a loan
taken out by McOmber. L & M held a 50 percent interest in Cover Crop Seeders
LLC.
{¶6} By the end of 2015, following a particularly low-yield group of cattle,
L & M found itself in dire financial straits and the cattle farm ceased operations.
This left McOmber, the only signatory on all L & M’s debts, with significant
liabilities.
{¶7} For reasons disputed by the parties, on July 7, 2017, Wesley and Brooke
signed a promissory note for $499,822.21 in favor of McOmber Land, LLC. In
connection with the promissory note, McOmber, Wesley, and Brooke executed a
“Memorandum of Understanding” that provided:
Whereas Michael McOmber and Wesley Liebrecht have had various
business ventures over the past several years, without the express
-3-
Case No. 15-22-05
benefit of written terms and conditions. This memorandum of
understanding is prepared to identify the business ventures, status of
any liability and refinance of the debt obligation.
1. A note from Wesley and Brooke Liebrecht in the face amount of
$499,822.21 payable to McOmber Land LLC entered into to establish
a repayment plan for various debt owed by Liebrecht’s [sic] to
McOmber Land LLC as identified on exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
2. A sprayer operated by Cover Crop Seeded [sic] LLC was
purchased with financing in the sole name of Michael McOmber and
his LLC with an approximate balance of $150,000.00. Wesley is in
the process of refinancing this debt out of Michael’s name. Refinance
is to be completed by July 31, 2017.
3. A barn was constructed on land owned by Liebrecht’s [sic] with
financing at Ag Credit. The approximate loan balance is $310,000.00.
The loan is in the sole name of Michael McOmber and his LLC.
Wesley is in the process of refinancing the debt out of Michael’s
name. Refinance to be completed by July 31, 2017.
4. If financing cannot be obtained or a bank commitment letter for
financing, by the end of July 2017, the barn, equipment and sprayer
will be sold and the difference between the note amount and the
selling price will be added to the note referenced in number 1 above.
Wesley was not successful in refinancing any of the loans listed in the Memorandum
of Understanding.
{¶8} On July 4, 2018, McOmber entered into a “Purchase Agreement” with
Bradley Liebrecht and Michael Liebrecht, Wesley’s brother and father. McOmber
agreed to sell the livestock barn and all associated equipment to Bradley Liebrecht
and Michael Liebrecht for $244,229.45. McOmber also agreed to sell them a New
-4-
Case No. 15-22-05
Holland tractor and associated attachments for $22,526.38. The Purchase
Agreement concluded with the following provision (the “Release Provision”):
By signing this purchase agreement the seller [McOmber] agrees to
release with the purchase of the items described above any and all
claim [sic] associated with Wes and Brooke Liebrecht. Along with
this agreement to [sic] seller agrees to sign a Release of Liability
Agreement at or before the closing of this sale.
Wesley and Brooke were not parties to the Purchase Agreement.
B. Procedural History
{¶9} The McOmber Parties first filed a complaint against Wesley, Brooke,
and the defendant LLCs (i.e., L & M, Slinger Trucking, and Prairie Creek) on
August 7, 2020. An amended complaint was filed with leave of court on November
9, 2020. The McOmber Parties’ amended complaint set forth six causes of action:
(1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent inducement; (3) fraud; (4) judgment on
the promissory note; (5) conversion and theft; and (6) constructive trust.1 An answer
to the amended complaint was filed on December 14, 2020, on behalf of Wesley,
Brooke, Slinger Trucking, and Prairie Creek.2
{¶10} On May 2, 2022, competing motions for summary judgment were
filed. McOmber Land, LLC filed a motion for partial summary judgment against
1
We note that although denominated as a cause of action in the McOmber Parties’ amended complaint, “[a]
claim for a constructive trust is a remedy, not an independent cause of action.” Benkovits v. Bandi, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109533, 2021-Ohio-1877, ¶ 24.
2
Although Wesley, Brooke, and the defendant LLCs were all initially represented by the same counsel,
counsel withdrew from his representation of L & M the day after the amended complaint was filed. No
attorney entered an appearance as substitute counsel for L & M, and L & M never answered the amended
complaint.
-5-
Case No. 15-22-05
Wesley and Brooke seeking judgment against Wesley and Brooke on the promissory
note. The motion was not filed on behalf of McOmber in his personal capacity.
{¶11} Wesley and Brooke also filed a motion for summary judgment. Their
motion did not indicate that it was being filed on behalf of Slinger Trucking or
Prairie Creek. In their motion, Wesley and Brooke argued they were entitled to
summary judgment on all of the McOmber Parties’ claims. They asserted the
Release Provision was a global release and they were therefore totally relieved from
liability on each of the McOmber Parties’ claims. In the alternative, Wesley and
Brooke requested partial summary judgment on McOmber’s fraud, fraudulent
inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty claims, arguing there was no evidence to
support these claims.
{¶12} In the following weeks, the parties exchanged responses to each
other’s motions for summary judgment. Notably, in response to Wesley and
Brooke’s argument that the Release Provision was a global release of all claims the
McOmber Parties might have against them, the McOmber Parties submitted an
affidavit from McOmber wherein he claimed:
I understood the language of the Purchase Agreement * * * [as]
releasing any and all claims associated with Wes and Brooke
Liebrecht with respect to [the barn, tractor, and associated
equipment], only. It had nothing to do with the Note balance and I
informed Bradley Liebrecht of my position prior to the signing of the
Purchase Agreement that I was refusing to release Wes and Brooke
Liebrecht from the Note.
-6-
Case No. 15-22-05
(Underlining sic.).
{¶13} As support for McOmber’s understanding of the Release Provision,
McOmber’s affidavit incorporated a copy of an email Bradley sent to McOmber on
November 15, 2018. In the email, Bradley indicated that he had drafted an
agreement for McOmber’s review (the “Proposed Agreement”). The Proposed
Agreement, an unexecuted copy of which was attached to Bradley’s email, provided
in relevant part:
Consideration
Michael McOmber and his heirs, executors, administrators, legal
representatives or other associations releases [sic] and forever
discharges [sic] Wesley and Brooke Liebrecht, their heirs, executors,
administrators, legal representatives and assigns from all manner of
actions, causes of action, accounts, claims and demands for or by
reason of any damage, loss or injury to person and property which has
been or may be sustained as a consequence of the claim details below.
Details
Any claims which occurred as a result of the participation in the
operation of L & M Ag, LLC, Prairie Creek Farms and all other
operations prior to this agreement.
Full and Final Settlement
For the above noted description and consideration, the parties to this
Agreement further agree not to make claim or take proceedings
against any other person which might claim contribution or indemnity
under the provisions of any statute or otherwise.
Terms
-7-
Case No. 15-22-05
It is declared that the terms of this settlement (Exhibit A) are fully
understood; that Wesley and Brooke Liebrecht will make the
scheduled payments described in Exhibit A in full by December 31 of
each year to Michael McOmber or his trust. The initial down payment
is to be made prior to January 1, 2019 and the repayment plan is to
become effective January 1, 2019. The annual payments are to be
determined to be the minimum and no penalties will be incurred for
early payoff.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties to
this release and the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere
recital.
(Boldface and underlining sic.). The Proposed Agreement featured signature lines
for McOmber and for Wesley. The “Exhibit A” attached to the Proposed Agreement
set forth a “Repayment Schedule” whereby Wesley and Brooke would pay
McOmber a total of $515,100, including interest, over a 22-year period.
{¶14} In his affidavit, McOmber averred that he rejected the Proposed
Agreement because it did not allow for repayment of the entire balance of the
promissory note. McOmber stated that “no further negotiations continued and [he
has] never released Wesley Liebrecht and Brooke Liebrecht from the terms of the
Note nor * * * waived or release [sic] any other claims other than as to the sale of
the cattle barn and related equipment.”
{¶15} For their part, Wesley and Brooke submitted an affidavit from Bradley
wherein he maintained that he “purchased the building and some equipment to settle
any debts Wesley or Brooke Liebrecht would have to Michael McComber [sic]” and
that he “would not have purchased the building if Michael McComber [sic] would
-8-
Case No. 15-22-05
not have agreed to release * * * any and all claims arising from L & M Ag.” He
stated it was his “expectation Wesley and Brooke Liebrecht would be released from
liability” with the purchase of the livestock building.
{¶16} Oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment were held on
August 11, 2022. On August 23, 2022, the trial court granted Wesley and Brooke’s
motion for summary judgment in its entirety and entered judgment in their favor on
all of the McOmber Parties’ claims. The trial court concluded that “[r]eading the
purchase agreement, it is a clear release of any and all claims with the Defendants
from the Plaintiff.” The trial court explained that “[t]he assertion of [McOmber’s]
affidavit that the release was not understood to be a complete release is an assertion
that cannot withstand a plain reading of the document.” The trial court did not
address Wesley and Brooke’s alternative arguments or consider McOmber Land,
LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding these matters to have been
mooted.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶17} On September 20, 2022, the McOmber Parties timely filed a notice of
appeal. They raise the following seven assignments of error for our review:
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the
appellees as there were material facts in dispute and summary
judgment should not have been entered as a matter of law.
-9-
Case No. 15-22-05
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred by allowance of the appellees to submit the
alleged global release that was not provided nor disclosed during
discovery.
Third Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
the defendants L & M Ag, LLC, Slinger Trucking Services, LLC
and Prairie Creek Farms, LLC as there was no motion for
summary judgment filed by such defendants.
Fourth Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment against
McOmber Land, LLC in favor of the appellees Wesley and
Brooke Liebrecht based on the alleged global release as it was not
a signatory to that document.
Fifth Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants L & M, Ag, LLC, Slinger Trucking Services, LLC and
Prairie Creek Farms, LLC as such entities were not named in the
alleged global release.
Sixth Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
the appellees, Brooke and Wesley Liebrecht against the appellant,
McOmber Land, LLC as there was no motion for summary
judgment filed by the appellees against McOmber Land, LLC.
Seventh Assignment of Error
The trial court erred as a matter of fact and law by denying
plaintiff-appellant, McOmber Land, LLC’s partial motion for
summary judgment upon the promissory note against Wesley
Liebrecht and Brooke Liebrecht.
-10-
Case No. 15-22-05
To the extent that we consider the McOmber Parties’ assignments of error, we do
so out of order, beginning with their second assignment of error.
III. Discussion
A. Second Assignment of Error: Did the court err by letting Wesley and
Brooke use the Purchase Agreement to support their summary judgment
motion?
{¶18} In their second assignment of error, the McOmber Parties argue that
the trial court should not have relied on the Purchase Agreement to grant Wesley
and Brooke’s motion for summary judgment because it was not timely provided
during discovery. The McOmber Parties maintain that the Purchase Agreement
“was never raised by [Wesley and Brooke] from the inception of this case,
throughout the course of discovery and never raised by [Wesley and Brooke] as a
defense in their depositions.” They argue that Wesley and Brooke’s use of the
Purchase Agreement was prejudicial because, due to the tardy disclosure of the
document, they were unable to depose Bradley Liebrecht or Michael Liebrecht
about the Purchase Agreement and they were denied an opportunity to reopen
Wesley and Brooke’s depositions.
{¶19} However, the record and the McOmber Parties’ own admissions
undermine the McOmber Parties’ claims. In January 2022, the trial court set a
discovery cut-off date of April 19, 2022, and a summary-judgment cut-off date of
May 2, 2022. The McOmber Parties concede that Wesley and Brooke provided
-11-
Case No. 15-22-05
them with a copy of the Purchase Agreement on April 11, 2022, eight days before
discovery closed. The McOmber Parties did not then issue notices of deposition to
Bradley Liebrecht or Michael Liebrecht. Nor did they move to reopen Wesley and
Brooke’s depositions or petition the trial court to extend the discovery or summary-
judgment cut-off dates. Instead, the McOmber Parties operated within the
timeframes set by the trial court, with McOmber Land, LLC’s motion for partial
summary judgment being filed on the May 2, 2022 deadline. Finally, it is hard to
paint the McOmber Parties as the victims of an unfair surprise given that McOmber
was, indisputably, a signatory to the Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, because
the McOmber Parties knew, or should have known, about the existence of the
Purchase Agreement and considering they did nothing to mitigate the prejudice
supposedly caused by the late disclosure, we conclude the trial court did not err by
allowing Wesley and Brooke to support their motion for summary judgment with
the Purchase Agreement.
{¶20} The McOmber Parties’ second assignment of error is overruled.
B. First Assignment of Error: Did the trial court err by awarding summary
judgment to Wesley and Brooke based on the purported global release?
{¶21} In their first assignment of error, the McOmber Parties argue that the
trial court erred by granting Wesley and Brooke’s motion for summary judgment.
They contend that the trial court erred by disregarding extrinsic evidence of the
parties’ understanding of the Release Provision and that when such evidence is
-12-
Case No. 15-22-05
properly considered, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
Release Provision was a global release.
i. Summary-Judgment Standard of Review
{¶22} We review a decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Doe v.
Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390 (2000). “De novo review is independent and
without deference to the trial court’s determination.” ISHA, Inc. v. Risser, 3d Dist.
Allen No. 1-12-47, 2013-Ohio-2149, ¶ 25.
{¶23} Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of
material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and
reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion when viewing the evidence in favor
of the non-moving party, and the conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party.
Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1994). Material facts are those facts “‘that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law.’” Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340
(1993), quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505
(1986). “Whether a genuine issue exists is answered by the following inquiry: Does
the evidence present ‘a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury’ or
is it ‘so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law[?]’” Id., quoting
Anderson at 251-252.
-13-
Case No. 15-22-05
{¶24} “The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of
producing some evidence which demonstrates the lack of a genuine issue of material
fact.” Carnes v. Siferd, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-10-88, 2011-Ohio-4467, ¶ 13, citing
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292 (1996). “In doing so, the moving party is
not required to produce any affirmative evidence, but must identify those portions
of the record which affirmatively support his argument.” Id., citing Dresher at 292.
“The nonmoving party must then rebut with specific facts showing the existence of
a genuine triable issue; he may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his
pleadings.” Id., citing Dresher at 292 and Civ.R. 56(E).
ii. General Principles of Contract Interpretation
{¶25} “[T]he construction and interpretation of contracts are matters of law
subject to a de novo standard of review.” Thiel’s Wheels, Inc. v. State Route 30,
Ltd., 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-21-06, 2022-Ohio-2093, ¶ 11.
{¶26} As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained:
When confronted with an issue of contract interpretation, our role is
to give effect to the intent of the parties. We will examine the contract
as a whole and presume that the intent of the parties is reflected in the
language of the contract. In addition, we will look to the plain and
ordinary meaning of the language used in the contract unless another
meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the agreement. When
the language of a written contract is clear, a court may look no further
than the writing itself to find the intent of the parties.
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397, 2011-Ohio-2720,
¶ 37.
-14-
Case No. 15-22-05
{¶27} “Contract language is ambiguous only where its meaning cannot be
determined from the four corners of the contract or where the language is susceptible
to two or more conflicting, but reasonable, interpretations.” McGonagle v. Somerset
Gas Transm. Co., L.L.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-156, 2011-Ohio-5768, ¶ 12.
“As a matter of law, a contract is unambiguous if it can be given a definite legal
meaning.” Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, ¶
11. “The determination whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law.”
Bryan Publishing Co. v. Kuser, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-07-17, 2008-Ohio-2610, ¶ 17.
{¶28} “A court will only consider extrinsic evidence in an effort to give
effect to the parties’ intentions if the language of a contract is ambiguous.”
McGonagle at ¶ 12. Where a contract is determined to be ambiguous, the ambiguity
may be resolved by resort to extrinsic evidence such as “‘(1) the circumstances
surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, (2) the objectives the
parties intended to accomplish by entering into the contract, and (3) any acts by the
parties that demonstrate the construction they gave to their agreement.’” Lutz v.
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 148 Ohio St.3d 524, 2016-Ohio-7549, ¶ 9, quoting
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 129 Ohio App.3d 45, 56
(2d Dist.1998).
{¶29} Although the question of contractual ambiguity is a matter of law for
the court, “‘[t]he meaning of the words in an ambiguous contract [is] a question of
-15-
Case No. 15-22-05
fact.’” Campbell v. 1 Spring, L.L.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-368, 2020-Ohio-
3190, ¶ 9, quoting Atelier Dist., L.L.C. v. Parking Co. of Am., Inc., 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 07AP-87, 2007-Ohio-7138, ¶ 17. Consequently, courts ordinarily
should not grant summary judgment when contractual language is ambiguous
because it is the role of the trier of fact to resolve the ambiguity. Ma v. Cincinnati
Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180610, 2020-Ohio-1471, ¶
18; Wolf v. Miller Diversified Consulting, L.L.C., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-07-049,
2008-Ohio-1233, ¶ 24.
iii. The Parol Evidence Rule
{¶30} In addition to the well-established principle that extrinsic evidence has
no relevance to the interpretation of an unambiguous contract, another equally
venerable rule of law—the parol evidence rule—also generally bars the introduction
of such evidence. “The parol evidence rule states that ‘absent fraud, mistake or
other invalidating cause, the parties’ final written integration of their agreement may
not be varied, contradicted or supplemented by evidence of prior or
contemporaneous oral agreements, or prior written agreements.’” Galmish v.
Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22, 27 (2000), quoting 11 Williston on Contracts, Section
33:4, at 569-570 (4th Ed.1999). “The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive
law that excludes extrinsic evidence to prove the content of an agreement.”
-16-
Case No. 15-22-05
Cronkelton v. Guaranteed Constr. Servs., 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-12-01, 2013-Ohio-
328, ¶ 9. It serves to “protect[] the integrity of final, written agreements.” Id.{¶31} The parol evidence rule “‘comes into operation when there is a single
and final memorial of the understanding of the parties.’” Galmish at 27, quoting In
re Gaines’ Estate, 15 Cal.2d 255, 264-265 (Cal.1940). That is, “[t]he parol evidence
rule applies, in the first instance, only to integrated writings * * *.” Id. at 28. “An
‘integration’ for purposes of the parol evidence rule ‘is “[t]he full expression of the
parties’ agreement, so that all earlier agreements are superseded * * *.”’” PNC
Bank, N.A. v. Springboro Med. Arts, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26408, 2015-
Ohio-3386, ¶ 19, quoting Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio
St.3d 546, 2009-Ohio-3554, ¶ 28 (Cupp, J., concurring), quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary 880 (9th Ed.2009). On the other hand, “[a] contract is partially
integrated if the parties adopt it as a final expression of only one portion of a larger
agreement, making the contract incomplete.” McGonagle, 2011-Ohio-5768, at ¶
19. Where an integration is only partial, “‘“[p]arol (extrinsic) evidence is
admissible to clear up ambiguities with respect to the terms that are not
integrated.”’” PNC Bank at ¶ 19, quoting Williams at ¶ 28 (Cupp, J., concurring),
quoting Black’s at 880. Extrinsic evidence may only be introduced to “supplement,
but not vary or contradict, the written terms of a partially integrated contract.”
McGonagle at ¶ 19.
-17-
Case No. 15-22-05
iv. Because there is an issue of material fact whether the Release Provision was
a global release, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment.
{¶32} In awarding summary judgment to Wesley and Brooke, the trial court
determined that the language of the Release Provision was unambiguous and that it
evinced an intention on the part of McOmber to completely release Wesley and
Brooke from liability for any claim the McOmber Parties might have against them.
To be sure, the first sentence of the Release Provision used sweeping language (i.e.,
“any and all claim [sic] associated with Wes and Brooke Liebrecht”), and in other
cases, courts have read similar language as unequivocally relieving the released
party from liability for any claim held by the releasing party. See, e.g., Richland
Auto Group, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, 5th Dist. Richland No. 11CA77, 2012-Ohio-
3060, ¶ 6 and 21; Dennewitz v. AIU Ins. Co., 4th Dist. Ross No. 03CA2748, 2004-
Ohio-2567, ¶ 9-10. However, the first sentence of the Release Provision must be
read in conjunction with all the other language contained in the Purchase
Agreement, particularly the second sentence of the Release Provision, wherein the
parties stated, “Along with this agreement to [sic] seller agrees to sign a Release of
Liability Agreement at or before the closing of this sale.” When read together, the
first sentence of the Release Provision can hardly be described as an unambiguous
release of any and all claims the McOmber Parties might have against Wesley and
Brooke.
-18-
Case No. 15-22-05
{¶33} While the first sentence of the Release Provision might, in isolation,
be understood as effectuating a complete global release, the second sentence of the
Release Provision makes this reading doubtful. The second sentence of the Release
Provision indicated that McOmber was to sign an additional release of liability
agreement—the terms of which were not specified or summarized anywhere in the
Purchase Agreement. It begs the question why a separate release agreement was
necessary if, through the first sentence of the Release Provision, McOmber released
all the claims he and his business might have against Wesley and Brooke. Although
the first sentence of the Release Provision establishes that McOmber released
something by signing the Purchase Agreement, the second sentence obscures, rather
than clarifies, the scope of that release. Thus, it is impossible to give the Release
Provision definite legal meaning from the language of the Purchase Agreement
alone, and accordingly, the Release Provision is ambiguous.
{¶34} Additionally, the second sentence of the Release Provision indicates
that the Release Provision was not the final expression of the parties’ (i.e.,
McOmber, Bradley Liebrecht, and Michael Liebrecht) agreement with regard to
McOmber’s release of liability. In the second sentence, the parties contemplated
that a separate agreement would need to be executed in order to fully achieve their
intentions with respect to McOmber’s release of liability. Thus, at least as to this
issue, it cannot be said that the Purchase Agreement contains the entirety of the
-19-
Case No. 15-22-05
parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the Purchase Agreement is facially incomplete,
meaning that the Purchase Agreement is only partially integrated. For this reason,
and because the Release Provision is otherwise ambiguous, it is necessary to turn to
extrinsic evidence to determine what the parties intended when they assented to the
language contained in the Release Provision.
{¶35} Turning to the extrinsic evidence submitted in support of and in
opposition to Wesley and Brooke’s motion for summary judgment, and viewing this
evidence in a light most favorable to the McOmber Parties, we conclude that a
genuine issue of material fact exists concerning the scope of the release embodied
in the Release Provision. In his affidavit, Bradley maintained that he understood
the Release Provision to be a global release and that he would not have purchased
the livestock barn from McOmber if he did not believe that McOmber was
completely releasing all claims he had against Wesley and Brooke. By contrast, in
his affidavit, McOmber averred that he understood the Release Provision as
releasing only those claims against Wesley and Brooke connected to the livestock
barn, tractor, and associated equipment and that he specifically told Bradley that he
was not forgoing his rights under the promissory note. This latter averment is
particularly important as it indicates Bradley might have had actual notice that
McOmber executed the Purchase Agreement understanding the Release Provision
to be something other than a global release. See Ma, 2020-Ohio-1471, at ¶ 18
-20-
Case No. 15-22-05
(“Normally, a party * * * need[s] to convey [his] gloss on an ambiguous term to the
counterparty for that to be probative * * *.”).
{¶36} Furthermore, McOmber insisted in his affidavit that he never agreed
to release Wesley and Brooke from claims other than those related to the livestock
barn, tractor, and related equipment. The Proposed Agreement—the very existence
of which is inconsistent with the assertion that the Release Provision was intended
to be a global release and with Bradley’s claim that he understood the Release
Provision to operate as a global release—lends some additional support to
McOmber’s claim. Insofar as the Proposed Agreement was not executed, it cannot
modify or add to the contractual rights or obligations created under the Purchase
Agreement. However, the Proposed Agreement—both by the fact of its existence
and the content of its provisions—is probative of the parties’ intentions and
understandings concerning the scope of the Release Provision and might supply
needed clarification in this regard.
{¶37} Therefore, construing the available extrinsic evidence in a light most
favorable to the McOmber Parties, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether
the Release Provision was intended to operate as a complete release or whether a
more limited release was intended. Ascertaining the parties’ intent under these
circumstances is a matter for the trier of fact in this case, and accordingly, we
-21-
Case No. 15-22-05
conclude that the trial court erred by granting Wesley and Brooke’s motion for
summary judgment.
{¶38} The McOmber Parties’ first assignment of error is sustained.
C. The Remaining Assignments of Error
{¶39} In light of our conclusion that the trial court erred by granting Wesley
and Brooke’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, it is no longer of
consequence whether the trial court might have erred by granting summary
judgment in favor of parties who did not formally file a motion for summary
judgment (i.e., L & M, Slinger Trucking, and Prairie Creek). Nor does it matter
whether the trial court might have erred by entering judgment against McOmber
Land, LLC and in favor of L & M, Slinger Trucking, and Prairie Creek even though
those parties were not mentioned in the Purchase Agreement and did not sign it.
Therefore, the issues presented in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of
error are no longer live, and these assignments of error are moot. See App.R.
12(A)(1)(c).
{¶40} In the seventh assignment of error, McOmber Land, LLC argues that
the trial court erred by failing to grant its motion for partial summary judgment and
that this court ought to enter judgment against Wesley and Brooke on the promissory
note. Irrespective of our opinion of the merits of McOmber Land, LLC’s motion
-22-
Case No. 15-22-05
for partial summary judgment, we decline to consider its arguments further or to
afford the relief requested.
{¶41} When the trial court granted Wesley and Brooke’s motion for
summary judgment, it found that all remaining matters in the case were moot. This
included Wesley and Brooke’s alternative argument for partial summary judgment
(i.e., that there was no evidence to support McOmber’s fraud, fraudulent
inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty claims) as well as McOmber Land, LLC’s
motion for partial summary judgment. Consequently, these went unaddressed by
the trial court in the first instance.
{¶42} “[I]ssues raised in summary judgment motions, but not considered by
the trial court[,] will not be decided by [the appellate court] in the first instance.”
McFarland v. Niekamp, Weisensell, Mutersbaugh & Mastrantonio, LLP, 9th Dist.
Summit No. 28462, 2017-Ohio-8394, ¶ 31; see Alcus v. Bainbridge Twp., 11th Dist.
Geauga No. 2019-G-0206, 2020-Ohio-626, ¶ 30 (“Where the trial court does not
rule on a summary judgment argument because it finds it moot, it is not proper for
the appellate court in the first instance to address the argument.”). “To consider
summary judgment arguments in the first instance on appeal ‘effectively depriv[es]
the non-prevailing party of appellate review.’” McFarland at ¶ 38, quoting
Guappone v. Enviro-Cote, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24718, 2009-Ohio-5540, ¶
13. Although we review a trial court’s summary-judgment decision de novo, we are
-23-
Case No. 15-22-05
ultimately “a court of review, not of first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709,
718, 125 S.Ct. 2113 (2005), fn. 7. Therefore, all the issues the trial court found to
be moot in light of its summary-judgment decision must first be assessed and
decided by the trial court.
IV. Conclusion
{¶43} For the foregoing reasons, the McOmber Parties’ first assignment of
error is sustained. Having found error prejudicial to the appellants herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the Van Wert County
Court of Common Pleas and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Judgment Reversed and
Cause Remanded
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-24-