Widok v. Estate of Wolf

[Cite as Widok v. Estate of Wolf, 2020-Ohio-5178.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
GERALD A. WIDOK, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 108717
v. :
ESTATE OF MARY WOLF, ET AL., :
Defendants-Appellees. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 5, 2020
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-17-882667
Appearances:
Michael P. Harvey Co., L.P.A., and Michael P. Harvey, for
appellant.
Reminger Co., L.P.A., Adam M. Fried, and Timothy J.
Gallagher, for appellees Betty Good, William Good, Albert
Pickup Jr., Patrick Pickup, and the Estate of Mary Wolf.
Meyers Roman Friedberg & Lewis, L.P.A., and T. Kinsey
McInturf, for appellee Joseph Scouloukas.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
Plaintiff-appellant, Gerald A. Widok (“Widok”), appeals the trial court’s
decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, the Estate of
Mary Wolf (“the Estate”), et al. Widok raises the following assignments of error for
review:
1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing defendant
Albert Pickup, Jr., Nettie Pickup, Betty Good, William Good, and
Patrick Pickup [from] Counts one through eleven via Ohio Civ.R.
12(B)(6) on August 15, 2018.
2. The trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing the Estate of
Mary Wolf [from] Counts five, nine and eleven of plaintiff’s amended
complaint pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
3. The trial court erred in dismissing defendant Joe Scouloukas from
Counts five, nine and eleven of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(6) on August 15, 2018.
4. The trial court erred as a matter of law in construing Albert Pickup,
Jr., Nettie Pickup, William Good, Betty Good and Patrick Pickup’s
motion to strike Counts twelve through fourteen of the amended
complaint as a motion to dismiss and then granting the motion to
dismiss on August 15, 2018.
5. The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting defendant
Scouloukas’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety on May 28,
2019.
6. The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting the defendant
Estate of Mary Wolf’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety on
May 28, 2019.
7. The trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that the
plaintiff failed to prove a material fact in dispute as to Count fourteen
of the amended complaint entitled spoliation on May 28, 2019.
8. The trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that spoliation
could be dismissed pursuant to summary judgment as no genuine
issues of material fact in dispute remained to be tried on May 28, 2019.
After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings on the remaining causes
of action.
I. Procedural and Factual History
Widok and his wife, Frances Widok (“Frances”), were long-time friends
with Joan Gullace (“Joan”) and her husband, Ed Gullace (“Ed”). In the mid-1970s,
Ed began experiencing severe pain that, according to Widok, caused Ed to
contemplate suicide. (Amended complaint ¶ 16.) Widok testified that he convinced
Ed to go to the hospital, where it was discovered that Ed was suffering from a “rare
blood disease” that required immediate treatment. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 28-32.)
When Ed was released from the hospital, he approached Widok and promised to
leave Widok $15,000 in his will for saving his life. (Id.) When Ed died in June 2007,
however, Widok did not receive $15,000, and Widok did not file a creditor’s claim
against Ed’s estate.
Following Ed’s death, Widok and Frances continued their close
relationship with Joan. Joan accompanied Widok and Frances on vacations, and
when necessary, Widok assisted Joan with her day-to-day needs. Widok explained
that he “assumed a responsibility [for Joan] as if she was [his] family” because he
had promised Ed that he would look after Joan after Ed died. (Id. at 65.)
Joan died in March 2016. Following her death, Widok held himself out
to be the executor of her estate, and began to claim that he and his wife were
beneficiaries of a last will and testament that Joan allegedly executed during her
lifetime. Widok could not recall any specific provisions of this will and admitted that
he did not have a written agreement with Joan to be named as a beneficiary in her
will. Nevertheless, Widok claimed that Joan “promised [him] $100,000 to take care
of her estate.” (Amended complaint ¶ 23.) At his deposition, however, Widok
admitted that Joan did not expressly state that she would give him $100,000 in her
will. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 81.) Rather, Joan stated that Widok and Frances “would
be pleasantly surprised” when she passed away. (Widok depo. vol. I., at. 64, 81;
Frances Widok depo. at 17.) Frances testified that she believed Joan intended “to
take care of us when she died and leave us some of her money.” (Frances depo. at
21.) However, Joan “never put a [dollar] figure on it.” (Widok depo. vol. I., at 82).
During their friendship with the Gullaces, Widok and Frances were
introduced to Joan’s sister, Mary Wolf (“Mary”). When Joan passed away, “[Widok]
checked on Mary every morning either by phone or personal visit.” (Amended
complaint at ¶ 54.) Widok alleged that “Mary relied on [him] for pretty much
everything, from taking care of utilities and payments to running around taking care
of errands.” (Id. at ¶ 55.) Widok described his relationship with Mary as a “pretty
good” friendship, particularly after Joan passed away. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 135-
136.) In contrast, Mary’s personal attorney, Anthony Amato (“Amato”), described
Widok’s relationship with Mary as manipulative. (Anthony Amato depo. at 36.) In
addition, Mary’s financial advisor, Joe Scouloukas (“Scouloukas”), her niece-in-law,
Betty Good (“Betty”), and her sister-in-law, Nettie Pickup (“Nettie”), each expressed
that they did not know Widok to spend any time with Mary until after Joan passed
away. (Joe Scouloukas depo. at 24; Betty Good depo. at 30-31; Nettie Pickup depo.
at 62.)
Widok testified that he was aware that Joan kept her will inside a desk
that was located in her kitchen. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 79.) He stated that only he
and Mary knew where the will was located. (Id.) Following Joan’s death, however,
the will was no longer in Joan’s desk. Thereafter, Widok began searching for Joan’s
will “in a lot of different places and didn’t find it.” (Id. at 88.) He searched bank
security boxes and contacted various attorneys, including Amato, who may have
assisted Joan in drafting her will. When his attempts proved unsuccessful, Widok
did not file an application to admit a lost will and did not file a creditor’s claim
against Joan’s estate.
In the absence of a will, Joan died intestate. Mary was Joan’s primary
beneficiary and next of kin who inherited all of Joan’s nonprobate assets. (Widok
depo. vol. I., at 235; Scouloukas depo. at 15-16). Widok testified that Mary “knew
[he] was looking for a copy of [Joan’s] will.” (Id. at 96-97.) According to Widok,
Mary approached him and proposed “that if [he] stopped looking for the will, she
would pay [him] the monies that Joan had promised [him].” (Id.) Widok explained
that Mary made this proposal because she understood that Joan did not leave Mary
“one penny” in her will. (Id. at 77.) Widok opined that “Mary was scared that [he]
would come up with a copy of the will and she would lose her money.” (Id. at 144.)
Widok described Mary’s promise as “an oral contract that he would stop
looking for the will and she would pay all the monies Joan had promised.” (Id. at
104.) Widok confirmed that he did not personally review Joan’s will and did “not
know what was in that will.” (Id. at 98.) However, Widok expressed to Mary that
he “would settle for $100,000 plus the $15,000 Ed had promised [him],” which
Mary accepted. (Id. at 105-108.) According to Widok, Mary stated that she would
pay him as soon as she sold Joan’s home. (Id. at 108.) Widok estimated that he and
Mary entered into the oral contract in “June or July 2016.” (Id. at 97.) He later
stated that the promise may have been made in October 2016. (Id. at 128.) Widok
stated that he stopped looking for Joan’s will based on Mary’s promise. (Id. at 129.)
Mary passed away in December 2016. Widok testified that Mary
confessed to him on her death bed that she retrieved and destroyed Joan’s will based
on the advice of her financial advisor, Scouloukas. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 86, 96-
97.)
In the months before her death, Mary made approximately nine
beneficiary designation changes to her nonprobate assets that were managed by
defendant Scouloukas. (Scouloukas depo. at 49.) Widok was never added as a
beneficiary to any of those accounts. (Id. at 50.) In addition, Mary never expressed
a desire to make any gifts to Widok or to make him a beneficiary. (Id. at 103.) In
November 2016, Mary executed a transfer on death designation affidavit, leaving
Joan’s house to defendants Albert Pickup, Jr. (“Albert”), William Good (“William”),
and Patrick Pickup (“Patrick”). In December 2016, Mary executed her last will and
testament, naming Albert, William, and Patrick as her beneficiaries. There was no
provision for Widok in Mary’s last will and testament.
On June 7, 2017, Widok filed a claim to assets with the Cuyahoga
County probate court, asserting a “claim to the Estate of Mary Wolf in the amount
of $100,000 for services rendered and promises made to [Widok], together with all
related expenses, interest, costs, fees and as well as a request for accounting by the
Estate of monies it held on behalf of the Estate.” The claim was also served on the
Estate’s executor, Amato, who rejected Widok’s claim in a letter dated June 8, 2017.
On July 6, 2017, Widok filed a complaint against the Estate in
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-17-882667. The complaint set forth causes of action for (1)
breach of oral contract, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) unjust enrichment, (4)
quantum meruit, (5) accounting, (6) specific performance, (7) constructive trust, (8)
breach of fiduciary duty, (9) reformation of will, (10) equitable estoppel, and (11)
subrogation. The complaint sought
at least $115,000.00 compensatory monies that he was promised for
services rendered together with punitive damages as appropriate,
incidental and consequential damages as appropriate, liquidated
damages and statutory damages as appropriate, specific performance
of his rights; accounting of Estate monies by an independent third
party, a constructive trust, an injunction against release of any monies
before full adjudication by this Court or jury and any appeals and any
and all other relief including pre- and post-judgment interest to which
he may be entitled and attorney fees.
Following discovery, Widok filed an amended complaint. In addition
to the eleven causes of action set forth in the original complaint, the amended
complaint included claims for intentional interference with expectancy of
inheritance, undue influence/fraud, and spoliation. The amended complaint also
named Albert, Patrick, Nettie, William, and Betty (together the “next of kin”), and
Scouloukas as additional defendants.
On January 19, 2018, the Estate moved to strike the three new claims
and the six new parties included in the amended complaint. The Estate argued that
the additional claims were “insufficient, impertinent, scandalous and brought in bad
faith.” Alternatively, the Estate moved to dismiss all counts of the amended
complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted. The Estate
asserted that the amended complaint “contains a hodgepodge of legally insufficient
claims that are barred by statute, are barred because Plaintiff lacks standing, or are
barred because this Court lacks jurisdiction.”
The trial court denied the motion to strike the amended complaint on
February 27, 2018. On the same date, the next of kin filed a joint motion to join the
Estate’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Scouloukas filed
a similar motion on March 12, 2018.
On August 15, 2018, the trial court granted the next of kin’s motion to
dismiss Counts 1 through 14 of the amended complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
In the same judgment entry, the trial court partially granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
motions filed by the Estate and Scouloukas, dismissing Counts 5, 9, and 11 of the
amended complaint. However, the court determined that it was premature to
dismiss the remaining counts against the Estate and Scouloukas.
On January 31, 2019, the Estate file a motion for summary judgment,
arguing Widok failed to establish the existence of a valid oral contract with Mary. In
support of its motion for summary judgment, the Estate attached (1) relevant
probate records, (2) Mary’s transfer on death designation affidavit, (3) Mary’s last
will and testament, and (4) the depositions of Valji Munjapara, M.D., Amato, Betty,
Nettie, Scouloukas, Frances, and Widok.
Widok filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment on April 1,
2019, arguing the Estate “failed to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute.” Widok supported his opposition brief with an affidavit
submitted by Frances, his own deposition testimony, and relevant portions of the
depositions taken of Daniel Ripepi (“Ripepi”), Albert, Betty, William, and Amato.
Scouloukas also filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting
Widok’s claims against him fail as a matter of law because (1) Widok has admitted
under oath that Counts 1 through 13 are inapplicable to Scouloukas, and (2) there
are no issues of fact pending regarding Widok’s remaining spoliation claim against
Scouloukas. Scouloukas supported his motion for summary judgment with his own
deposition testimony, and the deposition testimony of Widok.
Widok filed a brief in opposition, arguing that there remain genuine
issues of material fact regarding his claims against Scouloukas. Widok supported
his opposition brief with his own deposition testimony and relevant portions of the
depositions taken of Ripepi, Albert, Betty, William, Amato, and Scouloukas.
On May 28, 2019, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor
of the Estate of Mary Wolf, stating, in relevant part:
Plaintiff alleges that Mary Wolf made an oral promise of money to him
during her lifetime, to honor an oral promise of money made to him by
her deceased sister, Ms. Gullace.
More specifically, Plaintiff claims that Ms. Wolf orally contracted with
him to sell her recently deceased sister’s house and pay plaintiff out of
the proceeds of the sale if he agreed to stop looking for her sister’s last
will and testament.
***
The Court finds that plaintiff’s claims as a creditor of the Estate of Mary
Wolf are without merit. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to
Counts one through four, six, seven, eight, ten, and twelve. (Counts
five, nine, and eleven were previously dismissed by the court). As such,
Defendant Estate of Mary Wolf is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
The alleged contract between Mary Wolf and the Plaintiff was never
reduced to writing and Ms. Wolf had every opportunity to provide for
the Plaintiff by designating him as a beneficiary to any of her non-
probate accounts, or by providing for him in her last will and testament.
Ms. Wolf made no provision for the Plaintiff in her estate plan. The
Plaintiff has presented virtually no evidence or documentation to
support the alleged oral promise. Furthermore, oral contracts
pertaining to the sale of real property and oral promises to answer for
the debt of another are barred by the statute of frauds. See R.C.
1335.05. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is granted. The Court finds that Defendant Estate of Mary
Wolf is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and finds that all of the
Plaintiff’s claims are without merit.
In a separate journal entry, the trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of Scouloukas, stating, in relevant part:
There is no genuine issue of material fact as to Counts one, two, three,
four, six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen
(Counts five, nine, and eleven were previously dismissed by the Court).
As such, Defendant Scouloukas is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
***
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in establishing any of the
required elements of his spoliation of evidence claim.
A spoliation claim cannot be based upon conjecture that evidence
might have existed and that a party might have destroyed it. Scheel v.
Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland L.L.C., 2018-Ohio-3568, 108 N.E.3d
1252, paragraph one (8th Dist.). Defendant Scouloukas testified that
he was uncertain if he actually recorded the meeting, or inadvertently
deleted it or recorded over it.
Plaintiff specifically alleges that “the recorded but deleted or written
over information could have been Mary’s admission of what she told
Jerry on her death bed * * *.”
Even if the court assumes the recording did in fact exist, Plaintiff has
failed to provide any evidence to show that it would have contained
information supportive of his claim, or that defendant Scouloukas
willfully destroyed the recording to interfere with Plaintiff’s case.
With regard to Counts ten, twelve, and thirteen, the Court finds there
is no genuine issue of material fact, and as such, the defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant Scouloukas is not directly connected to the estate, and there
is no indication that he ever stood to benefit or sought to recover from
the Estate. It is undisputed that Defendant Scouloukas handled the
non-probate assets of Ms. Wolf. He testified that he never dealt with,
or saw, any written will for Ms. Wolf or Ms. Gullace. Plaintiff has not
presented any evidence to indicate that any of the non-probate assets
managed by Defendant Scouloukas were transferred inappropriately or
out of accordance with Ms. Wolf’s wishes. Further, Plaintiff has
acknowledged that he was not entitled to any of the non-probate assets
of Ms. Wolf. He has failed to demonstrate a statement or
representation made by Defendant Scouloukas, to Plaintiff, which he
relied upon. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s equitable estoppel claim fails.
Lastly, Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Scouloukas either
interfered with any expectance of inheritance or asserted any undue
influence on Ms. Wolf.
Widok now appeals from the trial court’s judgment.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
Widok’s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error challenge
the trial court’s dismissal of certain claims against the appellees pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6).
A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim assesses
the sufficiency of the complaint. Vetor v. Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 104023, 2016-Ohio-5846, ¶ 8, citing Assn. for the Defense of
Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (1989).
A trial court’s review of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is limited to the four
corners of the complaint along with any documents properly attached to or
incorporated within the complaint. Glazer v. Chase Home Fin. L.L.C., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 99875 and 99736, 2013-Ohio-5589, ¶ 38.
It is a longstanding principle that a plaintiff is not required to provide
his or her case within the complaint at the pleading stage. York v. Ohio State Hwy.
Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 144-145, 573 N.E.2d 1063 (1991). “Consequently, as long
as there is a set of facts, consistent with the plaintiff’s complaint, which would allow
the plaintiff to recover, the court may not grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Id.In our review of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, we must accept
the material allegations of the complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. Jenkins v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104768, 2017-
Ohio-1054, ¶ 8, citing Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-
4985, 834 N.E.2d 791, ¶ 6. “‘Furthermore, we must undertake an independent
analysis without deference to the lower court’s decision.’” Id., quoting Hendrickson
v. Haven Place, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100816, 2014-Ohio-3726, ¶ 12. For a
party to ultimately prevail on the motion, it must appear from the face of the
complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would justify a trial court
granting relief. Id., citing O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio
St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975).
1. Dismissal of Counts 5, 9, and 11 against the Estate and Scouloukas
In his second assignment of error, Widok argues the trial court erred
in dismissing Counts 5, 9, and 11 of the amended complaint against the Estate
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). In his third assignment of error, Widok argues the trial
court erred in dismissing Counts 5, 9, and 11 of the amended complaint against
Scouloukas pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Widok makes no specific arguments in
support of these claims, but broadly asserts that the trial court “misapplied Civ.R.
12(B)(6).” We address each claim separately.
a. Count 5 — Accounting
Count 5 of the amended complaint demanded:
an accounting of all of Mary Wolf’s Estate including where the money
came from, what monies are in the Estate, what monies have been paid
by the Estate, what monies are not in the Estate and who holds them,
and under what conditions and when those conditions occurred for the
benefit of all, including Mr. Widok.
Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and 2101.24(A)(1)(m), the probate
court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct and settle the
accounts of executors and administrators. Fetters v. Duff, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-
17-14, 2018-Ohio-542, ¶ 17. Widok has presented no arguments, and has cited no
legal authority, concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court to order an accounting
of the Estate. It is not this court’s duty to find and articulate legal authority to
support Widok’s assigned error. See Inner City Living, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Dev.
Disabilities, 2017-Ohio-8317, 87 N.E.3d 253, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). Accordingly, we find
the trial court did not err in dismissing Count 5 of the amended complaint.
b. Reformation of Mary’s Last Will and Testament
In Count 9 of the amended complaint, Widok asked the trial court
for rectification or reformation of all the documents filed allegedly or
purportedly permitting [the beneficiaries of Mary’s last will and
testament] to recover monies and instead insert Mr. Widok’s claims as
if they were there to begin with * * * in an amount to be determined by
the court and/or the jury.
“‘[R]eformation’ is defined as the remedy afforded by courts
possessing equitable jurisdiction to the parties * * * to written instruments, which
import a legal obligation, to reform or rectify such instruments whenever they fail,
through fraud or mutual mistake, to express the real agreement or intention of the
parties.” Lukacevic v. Daniels, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107002, 2019-Ohio-102,
¶ 23, quoting Greenfield v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 75 Ohio App. 122, 127-128, 61
N.E.2d 226 (12th Dist.1944). Relevant to the intention of Mary in this case, however,
R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(k) states that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to
construe wills. Moreover, Widok failed to present any evidence to create an issue of
fact as to whether Mary intended to provide for him in her last will and testament.
Under these circumstances, we find the court did not err in dismissing Widok’s
claim for reformation of Mary’s will.
c. Subrogation
In Count 11 of the amended complaint, Widok filed an action for
subrogation, seeking “subrogation rights in the full extent of his claims for earned
but unpaid monies going back several years on behalf of Mary Wolf and Joan
Gullace.”
Subrogation is defined as
1. The substitution of one party for another whose debt the party pays,
entitling the paying party to rights, remedies, or securities that would
otherwise belong to the debtor. * * * 2. The principle under which an
insurer that has paid a loss under an insurance policy is entitled to all
the rights and remedies belonging to the insured against a third party
with respect to any loss covered by the policy.
Black’s Law Dictionary 684-685 (3d Ed.2006).
In this case, the amended complaint does not contain any allegations
that Widok is entitled to the rights, remedies, or securities owed to another based
on his payment of another’s debt. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in
dismissing Count 11 for failure to state a claim.
Widok’s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
2. Dismissal of Claims against the Next of Kin
In his first assignment of error, Widok argues the trial court erred as
a matter of law in dismissing Counts 1 through 11 against the next of kin pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(B)(6). In his fourth assignment of error, Widok argues the trial court erred
as a matter of law in construing the next of kin’s motion to strike Counts 12 through
14 as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and then granting the motion
to dismiss. Again, Widok makes no specific arguments in support of his claims
against the next of kin, but broadly asserts that the trial court “misapplied Civ.R.
12(B)(6).” We are unpersuaded by Widok’s position.
For the reasons previously discussed, we find the trial court did not
err by dismissing Counts 5, 9, and 11 of the amended complaint against the next of
kin. The remaining counts of the amended complaint are predicated on alleged
promises made by Joan, Ed, and Mary during their lifetimes. Unquestionably,
however, the next of kin were not parties to these alleged promises, nor has Widok
alleged that he conferred a benefit upon the next of kin. Moreover, Widok has cited
no evidence to suggest the next of kin owed Widok a fiduciary duty, exercised undue
influence over Mary, or otherwise interfered with Widok’s expectancy of
inheritance. The next of kin were merely beneficiaries of the Estate, and are not
personally liable for any claims pursued by Widok.
Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in
dismissing each of Widok’s claims against the next of kin pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6). Moreover, Widok has cited no legal authority to support his contention
that the trial court erred by construing the next of kin’s motion to strike as a motion
to dismiss. App.R. 16(A)(7). Although the motion requested the trial court to strike
the amended complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(F), it alternatively sought dismissal of
all counts pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state claim upon which relief can
be granted. The trial court did not commit reversible err by affording the next of kin
relief pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
Widok’s first and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
B. Civ.R. 56(C)
Widok’s fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error
challenge the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the
Estate and Scouloukas.
We review an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo
standard of review. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d
241 (1996); Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales & Equip. Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 581, 585,
706 N.E.2d 860 (8th Dist.1998).
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when (1)
there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one
conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being
entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Horton v.
Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196 (1995), paragraph three
of the syllabus. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of
showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662
N.E.2d 264 (1996).
Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party “may
not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s
response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E); Mootispaw v.
Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197 (1996). Doubts must be resolved
in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-
359, 604 N.E.2d 138 (1992).
With this standard in mind, we address the remaining claims pursued
against the Estate and Scouloukas.
1. The Estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment
a. Count 1 — Breach of Oral Contract
Count 1 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for breach of oral
contract, alleging that the defendants failed to fulfill oral promises made by Mary,
Joan, and Ed “to compensate [Widok] for the time and effort and work that he put
in on their behalf over the years and emergencies.”
Before addressing the merits of Widok’s claim, we note that the Joan
and Ed, now deceased, are not parties to this case. Widok made no claims against
the Gullaces or their estates following their deaths, despite his testimony that they
each made monetary promises to him during their lifetimes. We decline to assess
Widok’s breach of contract claim to the extent it relies on promises of nonparties.
Regarding Mary, the record is devoid of any oral promises to
compensate Widok for the services he provided Mary during her lifetime. In fact,
Widok testified that he never entered into a contract, oral or otherwise, to provide
Mary services during her lifetime in exchange for money. (Widok depo. vol. I., at
146.) Rather, Widok’s breach of contract claim against Mary relies on her alleged
promise to pay Widok the money Joan had promised him if he promised to stop
looking for a copy Joan’s missing will. Specifically, Widok testified that Mary
promised to pay him $115,000 out of the proceeds of the sale of Joan’s house,
stating:
So basically the oral agreement was $100,000 plus the [$15,000] for
Ed. All right? And that was it. And that included everything.
(Id. at 147.) Widok estimated that the oral agreement was made in June or July
2016. However, he later testified that the agreement may have been made in
October 2016. Widok testified that Mary later admitted that she had taken Joan’s
will. (Id at 125.) Widok explained that Mary further confessed
that she destroyed Joan’s will because she was not a named beneficiary
under the instrument and feared losing a substantial amount of money
she inherited from Joan.
(Id. at 125, 213.)
In its motion for summary judgment, the Estate argued that it was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, “other than [Widok’s] bare
assertions, there are no facts in support of the existence of any oral contract.”
Alternatively, the Estate argued that the alleged oral contract was barred by the
statute of frauds because it was not reduced to writing, concerned an agreement to
answer for the debt of another, and involved the sale of real property.
The trial court agreed, finding (1) Widok presented virtually no
evidence or documentation to support the alleged oral promise, and (2) oral
contracts pertaining to the sale of real property and oral promises to answer for the
debt of another are barred by the statute of frauds pursuant to R.C. 1335.05.
Contract formation requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and
mutual assent between two or more parties with the legal capacity to act. See, e.g.,
Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-2985, 770 N.E.2d 58, ¶ 16, quoting
Perlmuter Printing Co. v. Strome, Inc., 436 F.Supp. 409, 414 (N.D.Ohio 1976) (“A
contract is generally defined as a promise, or a set of promises, actionable upon
breach. Essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual
capacity, consideration (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a
manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of consideration.”); Rulli
v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 683 N.E.2d 337 (1997). For a contract to be
enforceable, there must be a “meeting of the minds” as to the essential terms of the
agreement, i.e., the essential terms of the agreement must be ‘“reasonably certain
and clear’” and mutually understood by the parties. Kostelnik at ¶ 16-17, quoting
Rulli at 376; see also Episcopal Retirement Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Indus. Relations,
61 Ohio St.3d 366, 369, 575 N.E.2d 134 (1991) (To “declare the existence of a
contract,” both parties must consent to its terms, there must be a meeting of the
minds of both parties and the contract must be “definite and certain.”).
An oral agreement is enforceable when the terms of the agreement are
sufficiently particular. The terms of an oral contract may be determined from
“‘words, deeds, acts, and silence of the parties.’” Kostelnik at ¶ 15, quoting Rutledge
v. Hoffman, 81 Ohio App. 85, 75 N.E.2d 608 (12th Dist.1947).
Ohio courts have held that “[t]he burden of proof on one seeking to
enforce an oral contract requires that party to prove the existence of the contract by
clear and convincing evidence.” Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 4th Dist. Highland No.
09CA22, 2010-Ohio-1894, ¶ 20, citing Nofzinger v. Blood, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-
02-014, 2003-Ohio-1406, ¶ 53. “‘Clear and convincing evidence’ is evidence that
will produce in the fact-finder’s mind a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought
to be established.” Id. Ohio applies this heightened burden because oral contracts
are disfavored. Busch Bros. Elevator Co. v. Unit Bldg. Servs., 190 Ohio App.3d 413,
2010-Ohio-5320, 942 N.E.2d 404, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.), citing Kostelnik, 96 Ohio St.3d 1,
2002-Ohio-2985, 770 N.E.2d 58, at ¶ 15.
i. Meeting of the Minds
On appeal, the Estate reiterates its position that “Widok failed to
establish all of the necessary elements of an oral contract.” Initially, the Estate
contends that Mary’s words, deeds, acts, and silence in the months following her
alleged conversation with Widok demonstrate that there was no meeting of the
minds between Mary and Widok sufficient to establish an enforceable contract.
“‘Meeting of the minds’ refers to the manifestation of mutual assent
by the parties of an agreement to the exchange and consideration, or to the offer and
acceptance.” Tiffe v. Groenenstein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80668, 2003-Ohio-
1335, ¶ 25, citing 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts, Section 17, Comment c
(1981). To have a meeting of the minds, “‘there must be a definite offer on one side
and an acceptance on the other.’” Turoczy Bonding Co. v. Mitchell, 2018-Ohio-3173,
118 N.E.3d 439, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), quoting Garrison v. Daytonian Hotel, 105 Ohio
App.3d 322, 325, 663 N.E.2d 1316 (2d Dist.1995). Furthermore, “[t]he relevant
inquiry is the manifestation of intent of the parties as seen through the eyes of a
reasonable observer, rather than the subjective intention of the parties.” Bennett v.
Heidinger, 30 Ohio App.3d 267, 268, 507 N.E.2d 1162 (8th Dist.1986).
In this case, the Estate’s motion for summary judgment attached the
transfer of death designation affidavit that was executed by Mary on November 14,
2016. In relevant part, the affidavit reflects that, upon her death, Mary intended to
transfer her property interest in Joan’s home to Patrick, Albert, and William. The
affidavit contains no provision for Widok. In addition, the Estate attached Mary’s
last will and testament, which was finalized after Mary’s promise was made to
Widok. Again, the instrument contains no provision for Widok that would support
the existence of the alleged contract. Finally, the Estate attached the deposition
testimony of various individuals, including Mary’s attorney, Amato, and her
financial advisor, Scouloukas. Despite their active involvement in settling Mary’s
affairs in the months leading to her death, both Amato and Scouloukas testified that
Mary never expressed an intention to leave Widok a gift or payment. Amato testified
that Mary had spoken to him about Widok asking her for money based on promises
made to him by Joan. (Amato depo. at 30.) However, Amato reiterated that Mary
expressed to him that she did not feel obligated to compensate Widok for any
promises that may have been made by her sister. (Id. at 32.) And, although Widok
actively interacted with Amato and Scouloukas while they attempted to organize
Mary’s assets, the record is devoid of any indication that Widok ever referenced his
oral contract with Mary.
In his opposition to the Estate’s motion for summary judgment,
Widok submitted select portions of several depositions and the affidavit submitted
by his wife, Frances. In addition to his own testimony concerning the nature and
terms of the alleged agreement with Mary, Widok relied extensively on the
testimony of funeral director, Ripepi, who handled Joan and Mary’s funeral
arrangements. In relevant part, Ripepi testified that Mary expressed to him that she
“wanted Widok to receive a portion of her estate” because Widok “[had] been
helping her out.” (Ripepi depo. at 23-24.) While Ripepi made no statement to
indicate he was aware of an oral contract entered into between Mary and Widok, his
testimony does reflect that, at some point, Mary contemplated naming Widok as a
beneficiary of her estate. Similarly, although Frances had no knowledge of the
specific nature of the oral contract allegedly entered into between her husband and
Mary, she averred that Widok told her that Mary intended to honor Joan’s previous
promises to provide for Widok in her will.
In assessing the Estate’s characterization of Widok’s evidence, we note
that:
In summary judgment proceedings, a court may not weigh the evidence
or judge the credibility of sworn statements, properly filed in support
of or in opposition to a summary judgment motion, and must construe
the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
* * * When trial courts choose between competing affidavits and
testimony, they improperly determine credibility and weigh evidence
contrary to summary judgment standards. Finn v. Nationwide
Agribusiness Ins. Co., 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-02-80, 2003-Ohio-4233, ¶
39.
Telecom Acquisition Corp. I. v. Lucic Ents., 2016-Ohio-1466, 62 N.E.3d 1034, ¶ 93
(8th Dist.).
Further, as the Ohio Supreme Court recognized:
[c]redibility issues typically arise in summary judgment proceedings
when one litigant’s statement conflicts with another litigant’s
statement over a fact to be proved. Since resolution of the factual
dispute will depend, at least in part, upon the credibility of the parties
or their witnesses, summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate.
Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 341, 617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993).
Consistent with these principles, this court has stated that “whether a
meeting of the minds has been obtained is a question of fact to be determined by the
trier of fact from all the relevant facts and circumstances.” Gutbrod v. Schuler, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94228, 2010-Ohio-3731, ¶ 17, citing Garrison, 105 Ohio App.3d
at 325, 663 N.E.2d 1316 (2d Dist.1995). See also Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc.,
52 Ohio St.3d 232, 235, 556 N.E.2d 515 (1990) (“whether the parties intended to be
bound * * * is a question of fact properly resolved by the trier of fact.”). We recognize
that Mary’s actions prior to her death were not consistent with one who had
manifested the intent to compensate Widok in exchange for his promise to end his
search for Joan’s missing will. However, in addition to his own accounts of the
alleged promise, Widok has presented outside evidence that corroborates his
contention that, although nothing was reduced to writing, Mary had expressed an
intention to compensate Widok. Without assessing the credibility of Widok’s claim
in this case, we find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the existence of
the alleged agreement, and whether there was a meeting of the minds to support an
enforceable contract.
ii. Consideration
The Estate further contends that “the facts show there was no valid
consideration.” Specifically, the Estate suggests that “if the object of the contract —
the will — was previously destroyed and did not exist, then there could be no benefit
or detriment to Mary or Jerry, for that matter, by [Widok] ceasing his efforts to look
for it.” Thus, the Estate characterizes the alleged contract as being “no more than a
gratuitous promise.”
Consideration may consist of either a detriment to the promisee or a
benefit to the promisor. Irwin v. Lombard Univ., 56 Ohio St. 9, 19, 46 N.E. 63(1897). A benefit may consist of some right, interest, or profit accruing to the
promisor, while a detriment may consist of some forbearance, loss, or responsibility
given, suffered, or undertaken by the promisee. Id. at 20. There is, therefore,
consideration on the part of the promisee who refrains from doing anything that he
or she has the right to do whether or not there is any actual benefit to the promisor.
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25068, 2012-Ohio-
5915, ¶ 16, citing Gruber v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 158 F.Supp. 593 (N.D.Ohio
1957).
Generally, courts may not inquire into the adequacy of consideration,
which is left to the parties as “the sole judges of the benefits or advantages to be
derived from their contracts.” Hotels Statler Co., Inc. v. Safier, 103 Ohio St. 638,
644-645, 134 N.E. 460 (1921). But whether there is consideration at all is a proper
question for a court. Williams v. Ormsby, 131 Ohio St.3d 427, 2012-Ohio-690, 966
N.E.2d 255, ¶ 17,
Gratuitous promises are not enforceable as contracts, because there is
no consideration. * * * A written gratuitous promise, even if it evidences
an intent by the promisor to be bound, is not a contract. * * * Likewise,
conditional gratuitous promises, which require the promisee to do
something before the promised act or omission will take place, are not
enforceable as contracts. * * * While it is true, therefore, that courts
generally do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration once it is
found to exist, it must be determined in a contract case whether any
“consideration” was really bargained for. If it was not bargained for, it
could not support a contract.
Id., quoting Carlisle v. T & R Excavating, Inc., 123 Ohio App.3d 277, 283-284, 704
N.E.2d 39 (9th Dist.1997).
After careful review, we find there remain genuine issues of facts as to
whether the alleged contract, if its existence is proven, contained bargained for
consideration, consisting of a benefit to Mary and a detriment to Widok. The
evidence, construed in Widok’s favor, demonstrates that Widok believed that Joan
created a will prior to her death and that he was to serve as the executor of Joan’s
estate. Widok had the right to search for Joan’s missing will. And, by agreeing to
pay Widok $115,000, Mary induced Widok to refrain from his pursuit, thereby
causing him to suffer a detriment. In turn, if a trier of fact deems Widok’s evidence
credible, Widok’s detriment conferred a benefit on Mary, who was allegedly not a
named beneficiary under Joan’s will. The Estate’s suggestion that there was no
consideration based on Mary’s alleged destruction of Joan’s will is unpersuasive,
since it requires this court to speculate about the exact time the will was allegedly
destroyed and that there were no other copies of the will that could have been
recovered and submitted to the probate court by Widok.
iii. Statute of Frauds
Finally, the Estate argues “the statute of frauds bars enforcement of
the types of oral contracts that [Widok] seeks to enforce.” The Estate contends that,
in the absence of a written agreement, “the statute of frauds expressly forbids the
enforcement of a promise to answer for the debt of another, and the promise to sell
land or any interest in the sale of land.”
The statute of frauds is set forth in R.C. 1335.05 and provides, in
relevant part:
No action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant, upon a
special promise, to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of
another person; * * * or upon a contract or sale of lands * * *unless the
agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum
or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged
therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully
authorized.
Contrary to the trial court’s determination, Mary’s promise to pay
Widok $115,000 in exchange for his promise to stop searching for Joan’s lost will
did not constitute a contract for the sale of lands. While Mary expressed that she
would pay Widok once she sold Joan’s home, the sale of the property was not part
of the bargained-for exchange. Accordingly, we find the trial court’s reliance on R.C.
1335.05 to be misplaced in this regard.
With respect to the Estate’s position, and the trial court’s
determination that Mary’s alleged promise to Widok constituted a special promise
to answer for the debt of another, we are cognizant that:
“When the leading objection of the promisor is not to answer for
another’s debt but to subserve some pecuniary or business purpose of
his own involving a benefit to himself, his promise is not within the
statute of frauds ***.” See Wilson Floors Co. v. Sciota Park, Ltd., 54
Ohio St.2d 451, 377 N.E.2d 514, syllabus (1978).
Berry v. Lupica, 196 Ohio App.3d 687, 2011-Ohio-5381, 965 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 12 (8th
Dist.).
Construing the evidence in favor of Widok, it is evident that the
leading object of Mary’s alleged promise was not to answer for Joan’s past promises,
but to further her own pecuniary interests. Widok provided extensive testimony
regarding Joan’s intention to exclude Mary from her will, which, allegedly,
prompted Mary to retrieve and destroy Joan’s will while Joan was in hospice.
According to Widok, Mary received a significant windfall by preventing the recovery
of Joan’s will because she was Joan’s only living heir. Having found that genuine
issues of material fact remain as to the existence of the oral contract, we find the
terms of the agreement, if proven, circumvent the statute of frauds provision for an
oral contract to guarantee the debt of another.
Based on the foregoing, we find there are genuine issues of material
fact regarding whether Widok and Mary entered into an enforceable oral contract.
Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the
Estate on Count 1 of the amended complaint. Our conclusion does not rest on the
strength or credibility of Widok’s evidence, but is premised on the well-established
principle that “‘“the purpose of summary judgment is not to try issues of fact, but
rather to determine whether triable issues of fact exist.”’” Gutbrod, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 94228, 2010-Ohio-3731, at ¶ 7, quoting McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal &
Haiman Co., L.P.A. v. First Union Mgt., Inc., 87 Ohio App.3d 613, 619, 622 N.E.2d
1093 (8th Dist.1993), quoting Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 15,
467 N.E.2d 1378 (6th Dist.1983).
b. Counts 2, 3, and 4 — Breach of Implied Contract,
Unjust Enrichment, and Quantum Meruit
Count two of the amended complaint set forth a claim for breach of
implied contract, alleging, in relevant part:
Over the years, Jerry, Mary, Ed, and Joan had a very close, personal
and connected relationship of trust and repose. Growing out of this
relationship were promises that were based upon the understanding
that Widok would be compensated for time, effort, expertise and
experience in helping these folks, particularly after Ed passed away.
The relationship of the parties, the promises made and the work that
was done and accepted by Ed, Joan, and Mary give rise to implied
contracts which apparently the Estate has determined not to honor.
Relatedly, Counts 3 and 4 of the amended complaint set forth claims
for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Each count contains identical
language, alleging that “Mary Wolf and her family” were unjustly enriched because
they were not required to pay “nurses and personal assistance” for the “untold
amount of work [and services]” Widok provided for Mary. The amended complaint
expressed that “Mary relied on Jerry Widok for pretty much everything from taking
care of utilities and payments to running around taking care of errands, and he did
for Mary as he did for Joan.”
[I]t is well-established that there are three classes of simple contracts:
express, implied in fact, and implied in law. Hummel v. Hummel, 133
Ohio St. 520, 525, 14 N.E.2d 923 (1938); Rice v. Wheeling Dollar
Savings & Trust, 155 Ohio St. 391, 99 N.E.2d 301 (1951). “In express
contracts the assent to its terms is actually expressed in offer and
acceptance. In contract implied in fact the meeting of the minds,
manifested in express contracts by offer and acceptance, is shown by
the surrounding circumstances which made it inferable that the
contract exists as a matter of tacit understanding. In contracts implied
in law there is no meeting of the minds, but civil liability arises out of
the obligation cast by law upon a person in receipt of benefits which he
is not justly entitled to retain and for which he may be made to respond
to another in an action in the nature of assumpsit. Contracts implied
in law are not true contracts; the relationship springing therefrom is
not in a strict sense contractual but quasi-contractual or constructively
contractual. In truth contracts implied in law are often called quasi
contracts or constructive contracts. Columbus, Hocking Valley &
Toledo Ry. Co. v. Gaffney, 65 Ohio St. 104, 61 N.E. 152 (1901).”
Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1, 6-7, 540 N.E.2d 257 (1989). A contract implied in
law, or a quasi-contract, “does not rest upon the intention of the parties, but rather
on equitable principles, in order to provide a remedy.” Paugh & Farmer, Inc. v.
Menorah Home for Jewish Aged, 15 Ohio St.3d 44, 46, 472 N.E.2d 704 (1984).
Ohio Courts have recognized that the concepts of quasi-contract,
unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit are interrelated. A claim for unjust
enrichment is an equitable claim based on a quasi-contract. Padula v. Wagner,
2015-Ohio-2374, 37 N.E.3d 799, ¶ 47 (9th Dist.). See also Grothaus v. Warner, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-115, 2008-Ohio-6683, ¶ 8, citing Hummel at 525-528.
“[U]njust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits
which in justice and equity belong to another.” Hummel at 528. To prevail on a
claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant, (2) the
defendant had knowledge of such benefit, and (3) the defendant retained that
benefit under circumstances in which it would be unjust to do so without payment.
See Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-4985, 834 N.E.2d
791, ¶ 20, citing Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179, 183, 465 N.E.2d
1298 (1984).
Similarly, “quantum meruit is a doctrine derived from the natural law
of equity, the basic concept of which is that no one should be unjustly enriched who
benefits from the services of another. In order to prevent such an unjust
enrichment, the law implied a promise to pay a reasonable amount for the services
rendered [by another] * * *, in the absence of a specific contract.” Sonkin & Melena
Co., L.P.A. v. Zaransky, 83 Ohio App.3d 169, 175, 614 N.E.2d 807 (8th Dist.1992).
Though the elements of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment have been found to
be identical, quantum meruit is a distinct claim or right of action. A N Bros. Corp.
v. Total Quality, L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-549, 59 N.E.3d 758, ¶ 42 (12th Dist.), citing In
re Suchodolski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009833, 2011-Ohio-6333, ¶ 8. The
difference is the manner in which damages are computed.
In this case, the allegations set forth in Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the
amended complaint are not related to Mary’s alleged promise to compensate Widok
if he stopped searching for Joan’s lost will. Rather, the claims rely exclusively on the
day-to-day services Widok allegedly performed for Mary during her lifetime. As
stated, Widok conceded during his deposition that he did not enter into an express
agreement with Mary to provide her services in exchange for compensation. (Widok
depo. vol. I., at. 146.) Thus, Widok’s claims rely on the equitable principles of a quasi
contract.
As previously discussed, in a quasi-contract action, a plaintiff may,
under certain circumstances, recover the value of services rendered for the benefit
of a decedent during his or her lifetime. See Motzer v. Estate of Carpenter, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 11869, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2034, 4 (May 18, 1990); Jankowski
v. Key Trust Co., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-00-1310, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2538, 12
(June 8, 2001); Barto v. Barto, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 91-T-4520, 1992 Ohio App.
LEXIS 441, 5 (Feb. 7, 1992); Thompson v. Thompson, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 25-CA-
89, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 805, 3 (Mar. 2, 1990); Hancock v. Williams, 1st Dist.
Warren Nos. 263 and 272, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 9864, 5 (Aug. 15, 1979). When the
services are performed by one who is not a family member, the presumption is that
the provision and acceptance of services gives rise to an obligation to pay regardless
of the existence of a written contract. See Motzer at id.; Estate of Combs, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-961056, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 955, 3-4 (Mar. 13, 1998); In re
Guardianship of Hall, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 95CA16, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1352,
7 (Mar. 26, 1996); Spinks v. Carey, 12th Dist. No. CA91-02-003, 1992 Ohio App.
LEXIS 502 (Feb. 10, 1992); In re Estate of Fleming, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA83-
08-009, 1984 Ohio App. LEXIS 10062, 4 (June 25, 1984). However
[w]here it is shown, or admitted, that a party performing services, that
should have been performed by another, had no intention at the time
to claim compensation, and did not expect to receive any from the
other, no recovery therefor can be had upon a quantum meruit against
the party for whom the work was done.
Gaffney, 65 Ohio St.104, 61 N.E. 152, at paragraph two of the syllabus. Generally,
the question of whether the services were provided gratuitously is a question of fact.
Beckler v. Bacon, 170 Ohio App.3d 612, 2007-Ohio-1319, 868 N.E.2d 716, ¶ 14 (1st
Dist.).
In this case, the evidence attached to Widok’s opposition brief
unquestionably demonstrates that Widok provided Mary various day-to-day
services prior to her death. For instance, the deposition testimony submitted by
Widok establishes that Widok handled Mary’s finances, paid bills on her behalf,
accompanied her to appointments, and assisted her in day-to-day activities.
Although the record reflects that Mary was weary of Widok’s sudden involvement in
her life, the evidence indicates that Mary understood and accepted Widok’s services
to her benefit.
Regarding the expectations of the parties, there is no dispute that
Widok is not a member of Mary’s family. And, when questioned by defense counsel
about whether the services provided to Mary were gratuitous, Widok declined to
answer following an objection by plaintiff’s counsel. (Widok depo. vol. I., at 149.)
There is no direct evidence to prove or disprove whether Widok had an expectation
of compensation at the time he provided Mary services. Under these circumstances,
we find there exists genuine issues of material fact as to whether Widok provided
services to Mary gratuitously and, if not, the value of any services he provided for
which he was not compensated. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of the Estate on Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the amended
complaint.
c. Count 6 — Specific Performance
Count 6 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for specific
performance. In relevant part, Widok sought “the specific performance of the
promises made by both Mary Wolf and her sister, Joan Gullace, and before that her
husband, Ed Gullace now deceased.” Widok reiterates that “Mary promised [him]
that she would honor Joan’s financial obligations as well as her own if he would stop
looking for the will and that he would get the money owed to him when the house
was sold.”
Ohio Jurisprudence describes the nature of specific performance as
follows:
Specific performance of contracts is an equitable remedy, and an action
for specific performance is an equitable action. The remedy of specific
performance of contracts is a well-recognized and important branch of
jurisprudence but one that generally is available only to protect
contract rights.
The remedy of specific performance requires a part[y] to provide
performance specifically as agreed. The purpose of the remedy is to
give the one who seeks it the benefit of the contract in specie by
compelling the other party to the contract to do that which was
agreed - to perform the contract on the precise terms agreed upon by
the parties. Hence, a decree for specific performance is nothing more
or less than a means of compelling a party to do precisely that which
ought to have been done without the court’s coercion.
***
Specific performance is not a remedy that may be sought on all
contracts; ordinarily, where a contract is breached by one party, the
other party is limited to an action for damages for breach; however, if
such damages do not provide an adequate remedy, an action for
specific performance may lie.
84 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Specific Performance, Section 1 (2016).
As recognized by this court:
Specific performance is only available where there is no adequate
remedy at law. Gleason v. Gleason, 64 Ohio App.3d 667, 672, 582
N.E.2d 657 (4th Dist.1991). Generally, specific performance will be
denied unless there is evidence that money damages would be an
inadequate remedy. Id.Midamco v. Sashko, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96683 and 97180, 2012-Ohio-1189,
¶ 23.
After careful consideration, we find the remedy of specific
performance to be unnecessary under the circumstances presented in this case.
While there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an
enforceable contract, Widok has not demonstrated that money damages would not
afford him adequate relief for the loss arising from the breach. Accordingly, the trial
court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate on Count 6
of the amended complaint.
d. Count 7 — Constructive Trust
Count 7 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for constructive
trust. Restating his position that he has been “wrongfully deprived of his rights to
monies promised to him by both Mary and Joan,” Widok asked the trial court to
organize a constructive trust “for the benefit of Widok.”
A constructive trust is a “trust by operation of law which arises contrary
to intention and in invitum, against one who, by fraud, actual or
constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of
wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice,
concealment, or questionable means, or who in any way against equity
and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to
property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and
enjoy. It is raised by equity to satisfy the demands of justice.”
(Footnotes omitted.) Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St.3d 223, 225, 459
N.E.2d 1293 (1984), quoting 76 American Jurisprudence 2d, Trusts,
Section 221 (1975). A constructive trust is considered a trust because
“[w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the
holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial
interest, equity converts him into a trustee.” Id. at 225, quoting Beatty
v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N.Y. 380, 386, 389, 122 N.E. 378(1919).
Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling, 109 Ohio St.3d 276, 2006-Ohio-2418, 847
N.E.2d 405, ¶ 18.
It is evident that Widok’s request for a constructive trust is predicated
on his position that the beneficiaries of the Estate have received monetary payments
that belong, in part, to Widok. However, as this court has previously explained:
A constructive trust is a remedy, not a cause of action. “A constructive
trust is, in the main, an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment.
This type of trust is usually invoked when property has been acquired
by fraud” or the acquisition of property “is against the principles of
equity.” Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 459 N.E.2d 1293(1984).
Graham v. Lakewood, 2018-Ohio-1850, 113 N.E.3d 44, ¶ 58 (8th Dist.). See also
Kostyo v. Kaminski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010266, 2013-Ohio-3188, ¶ 17
(“Generally speaking, however, there is no such thing as a cause of action for
constructive trust.”).
Having determined the trial court committed reversible error by
awarding the Estate summary judgment on the equitable claims set forth in Counts
2, 3, and 4 of the amended complaint, the remedy of a constructive trust may be
available to Widok pending resolution of his remaining claims. See Concepcion v.
Concepcion, 131 Ohio App.3d 271, 278, 722 N.E.2d 176 (3d Dist.1999) (“It is well
established that where unjust enrichment is found, it may serve as a basis for the
operation of a constructive trust.”). At this time, however, because constructive trust
is not an independent cause of action, we are unable to conclude the trial court erred
by granting judgment in favor of the Estate on Count seven.
e. Count 8— Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Count 8 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty. In relevant part, Widok alleged that Mary owed him a fiduciary duty
“to make sure that the path was clear for her or the Estate to honor the obligations
that she made.” Widok further alleged that “as a result of the breach of fiduciary
duty, [he] was damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.”
To maintain a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must
prove (1) the existence of a duty arising from a fiduciary relationship, (2) a failure to
observe the duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting from that failure. Strock
v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 216, 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988); Harwood v. Pappas
& Assocs., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84761, 2005-Ohio-2442, ¶ 26.
A fiduciary has been defined as a person having a duty, created by his
or her undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters
connected with such undertaking. Strock, at 527. A claim of breach of
fiduciary duty is basically a claim for negligence that involves a higher
standard of care. Id.Star Land Title Agency, Inc. v. Surewin Invest., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87569,
2006-Ohio-5729, ¶ 36. “The burden of proving the existence of a fiduciary
relationship is on the party asserting it.” RPM, Inc. v. Oatey Co., 9th Dist. Medina
Nos. 3282-M and 3289-M, 2005-Ohio-1280, ¶ 20.
“Whether or not a fiduciary relationship exists depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case.” Horak v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 9th Dist. Summit
No. 23327, 2007-Ohio-3744, ¶ 31. “[I]t is well settled that, the relationship of debtor
and creditor, without more, is not a fiduciary relationship.” Stancik v. Deutsche
Natl. Bank, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102019, 2015-Ohio-2517, ¶ 49, citing Blon v.
Bank One, Akron, N.A., 35 Ohio St.3d 98, 519 N.E.2d 363 (1988). “A fiduciary duty
may arise out of a contract or an informal relationship, however, where both parties
to the transaction understand that a special trust of confidence has been reposed.”
RPM at ¶ 20. “Thus, a fiduciary relationship cannot be unilateral, but must be
mutual.” Horak at ¶ 32.
In this case, the Estate presented substantial testimony regarding
Mary’s interactions with Widok and her interpretation of their relationship. The
evidence demonstrates that Mary believed that she and Widok were acquaintances
based on their mutual relationships with Joan. Although Widok has raised issues of
fact regarding Mary’s monetary obligations, Widok did not produce evidence
establishing that a mutual fiduciary relationship existed between him and Mary, as
there was no evidence that Mary understood that Widok was placing a special trust
or confidence in the relationship, or that Mary intended to act primarily for the
benefit of Widok. Accordingly, we find Widok’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty
fails as a matter of law. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in
favor of the Estate on Count 8 of the amended complaint.
f. Count 10 — Equitable Estoppel
Count 10 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for equitable
estoppel. In relevant part, Widok sought to estop the Estate, and those intending to
recover from the Estate, from “preventing Widok from presenting his proper claims
and obtaining his rightful monies.”
The doctrines of equitable and promissory estoppel, while related,
contain distinctions. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, “‘a representation of
past or existing fact made to a party who relies upon it reasonably may not thereafter
be denied by the party making the representation if permitting the denial would
result in injury or damage to the party who so relies.’” Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110
Ohio St.3d 194, 2006-Ohio-4251, 852 N.E.2d 716, ¶ 20, quoting 4 R. Lord, Williston
on Contracts, Section 8:3, 28-31 (4th Ed.1992). “‘The purpose of equitable estoppel
is to prevent actual or constructive fraud and to promote the ends of justice.’” Doe
v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491, 2006-Ohio-2625, 849 N.E.2d 268,
¶ 43, quoting Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Frantz, 51 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 555
N.E.2d 630 (1990).
The party claiming estoppel “‘must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant
made a factual misrepresentation; (2) that is misleading; (3) that
induces actual reliance which is reasonable and in good faith; and (4)
which causes detriment to the relying party.’” Clark v. Univ. Hosps. of
Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 78854, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS
3832, 14-15 (Aug. 30, 2001), quoting Livingston v. Diocese of
Cleveland, 126 Ohio App.3d 299, 710 N.E.2d 330 (8th Dist.1998).
N. Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Farro, 2019-Ohio-5344, 138 N.E.3d 1223, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).
In turn, promissory estoppel is defined as “‘[a] promise which the
promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of
the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is
binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.’” Hortman
at ¶ 23, quoting 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts, Section 90, at 242 (1981).
In order to establish a claim for promissory estoppel, the party must prove “(1) a
clear, unambiguous promise, (2) that the person to whom the promise was made
relied on the promise, (3) that reliance on the promise was reasonable and
foreseeable, and (4) that the person claiming reliance was injured as a result of
reliance on the promise.” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, 189 Ohio App.3d 560,
2010-Ohio-4601, 939 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 96 (10th Dist.), citing Pappas v. Ippolito, 177
Ohio App.3d 625, 2008-Ohio-3976, 895 N.E.2d 610, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.). “Thus, the key
distinction between the two doctrines [of promissory and equitable estoppel] is
whether the estoppel arises from a promise and not a misstatement of fact.”
Hortman at ¶ 24.
As stated, there remain issues of material fact regarding the existence
of an oral contract and whether Mary entered the oral agreement in furtherance of
her own pecuniary interests, so as to preclude the application of the statute of frauds.
These matters must be resolved by a trier of fact. If, however, Widok’s breach of
contract claim proves unsuccessful on the merits, we find Widok has not presented
sufficient facts to warrant the application of equitable estoppel as an alternative
theory of relief.
In this case, Count 10 of the amended complaint and the materials
attached to Widok’s brief in opposition to summary judgment do not identify a
misleading misrepresentation of fact that was alleged to have been made by Mary.
Rather, Widok’s equitable estoppel claim relies exclusively on Mary’s alleged
promises. See Hortman, 110 Ohio St. 3d 194, 2006-Ohio-4251, 852 N.E.2d 716, at
¶ 24. (“Promissory estoppel and estoppel by conduct are two entirely distinct
theories. The latter does not require a promise.”). Under the foregoing
circumstances, Widok’s theory of equitable estoppel fails. Accordingly, we find the
trial court did not err in granting judgment in favor of the Estate on Count 10 of
Widok’s amended complaint.
g. Count 12 — Intentional Interference
with Expectancy of Inheritance
Count 12 of the amended complaint set forth a claim for intentional
interference with expectancy of inheritance. The complaint alleged, in relevant part:
As stated throughout this amended complaint, Widok has stated
repeatedly that both Joan Gullace as well as Mary Wolf promised him,
and for that matter, his wife, an inheritance based upon continuing to
do work for both of them during their lives. Widok believes and
maintains that there has been intentional interferences by one or more
defendants with his expectancy of inheritance on many different levels.
* * * Widok maintains that he had a reasonable certainty that the
expectation of inheritance would have been realized but for the
interference of one or more of the defendants[,] including Mary Wolf[,]
on the inheritance from Joan Gullace and the current defendants on
the inheritance from Mary Wolf.
The elements of the tort of intentional interference with expectation
of inheritance are (1) an existence of an expectancy of inheritance in the plaintiff; (2)
an intentional interference by a defendant with the expectancy of inheritance; (3)
conduct by the defendant involving the interference which is tortious, such as fraud,
duress or undue influence, in nature; (4) a reasonable certainty the expectancy of
inheritance would have been realized, but for the interference by the defendant; and
(5) damage resulting from the interference. Firestone v. Galbreath, 67 Ohio St.3d
87, 88, 616 N.E.2d 202 (1993).
In its motion for summary judgment, the Estate argued that, in the
absence of a written agreement with Joan, Widok failed to establish that he had an
expectancy of an inheritance from Joan. The Estate properly states that, pursuant
to R.C. 2107.04, “no agreement to make a will or to make a devise or bequest by will
shall be enforceable unless it is in writing.” However, a claim for intentional
interference with an expectation of inheritance does not require a vested right of
inheritance. Firestone v. Galbreath, 25 F.3d 323, 325-326 (6th Cir.1994) (“A cause
of action for tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance, however, protects
a more attenuated claim to the decedent’s property—a claim which need not rise to
the level of a vested interest in order to be protected as a legitimate expectancy.”) In
this case, Widok and his wife provided extensive testimony regarding their close
relationship with Joan and the statements she made during her lifetime that were
reasonably interpreted as a manifestation of Joan’s intent to provide for Widok and
his wife in her will. In our view, whether Widok had an expectation of inheritance
sufficient to succeed on his claim is an issue of fact.
The Estate further argued that Widok’s claim is barred because he
failed to exhaust all appropriate remedies in the probate court. The Estate notes
that Widok did not attempt to admit a lost will for Joan’s estate, and did not pursue
a creditor’s claim against Joan’s estate. In Firestone, 67 Ohio St.3d 87, 616 N.E.2d
202, the Ohio Supreme Court explicitly declined to reach the issue of the “exhaustion
of other possible remedies.” Id. at 88. However, the Tenth District has previously
held that “a claim for intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance may
not be pursued if adequate relief is available to the plaintiff through probate
procedures ***.” Roll v. Edwards, 156 Ohio App.3d 227, 2004-Ohio-767, 805
N.E.2d 162, ¶ 28 (4th Dist.).
This court has yet to adopt the Tenth District’s position.
Nevertheless, Widok’s claim in this case relies on allegations that Mary interfered
with his expectancy of inheritance by perpetrating an alleged fraud, i.e.,
intentionally destroying Joan’s will. As discussed, the probate court is a court of
limited jurisdiction. It has only the powers granted to it by statute. Relevant to this
claim, the Ohio Supreme Court has explained that, “generally speaking, the probate
division has no jurisdiction over claims for money damages arising from allegations
of fraud.” Schucker v. Metcalf, 22 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 488 N.E.2d 210 (1986). See
also Dumas v. Estate of Dumas, 68 Ohio St.3d 405, 408, 627 N.E.2d 978 (1994)
(“Even though [plaintiff] seeks an order to rescind the transfer of assets of the trust
* * * which order, if granted may affect the administration of [the] probate estate,
her primary aim is still the recovery of monetary damages from the alleged fraud *
* * [and] the issues raised * * * were solely within the jurisdiction of the general
division * * *.”); Dallas v. Childs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65150, 1994 Ohio App.
LEXIS 2694, 4-5 (June 23, 1994) (“As a matter of law, a probate court has no
jurisdiction over a claim for money damages resulting from fraud.”), citing
Alexander v. Compton, 57 Ohio App.2d 89, 385 N.E.2d 638 (1978); DiPaolo v.
DeVictor, 51 Ohio App.3d 166, 555 N.E.2d 969 (10th Dist.1988). Because Widok’s
intentional interference with his expectancy of inheritance relies on the allegedly
fraudulent conduct of Mary, we are unable to conclude that Widok would have been
afforded adequate relief in the probate court for the alleged wrongs committed by
Mary. Firestone, 895 F.Supp. 917, at 926 (“[c]ourts must look to whether the probate
court can provide the plaintiff with adequate relief in the form of the actual damages
which would be recovered in the tort action; punitive damages awards are not
considered a valid expectation in this context.”) See also Cunningham v.
Cunningham, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-1049, 2009-Ohio-4648, ¶ 19.
Resolving all doubts in favor of Widok, we find there remain genuine
issues of material fact as to the elements of Widok’s claim for intentional
interference with an expectancy of inheritance. Reasonable minds could come to
different conclusions as to whether Widok had an expectation of an inheritance from
Joan, whether Mary intentionally destroyed Joan’s will, and if so, whether Widok
suffered damages based upon a reasonable certainty that his expectancy of
inheritance would have been realized but for the interference by Mary. Accordingly,
the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate on Count
12 of the amended complaint.
Widok’s sixth assignment of error is sustained in part, overruled in
part.1
2. Scouloukas’s Motion for Summary Judgment
In his fifth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error, Widok argues
the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment in favor of
Scouloukas.
With respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the amended
complaint, Widok does not make any arguments regarding the specific evidence
supporting these claims against Scouloukas. In addition, Widok does not dispute
that he confirmed during his deposition testimony that these claims did not pertain
to Scouloukas. (Widok depo. vol. II., at 205-215.). Nevertheless, Widok contends
that the questions posed by counsel for Scouloukas were improper because they
required Widok, a layperson, to make legal conclusions in violation of Evid.R 701.
1Count 13 relates to the undue influence exerted upon Mary. In turn, Count 14
relates to the alleged conduct of Scouloukas. Therefore, these remaining counts do not
state a claim against the Estate.
As such, Widok suggests the trial court erred in determining that he failed to
establish that these counts pertained to Scouloukas based on his own admissions.
A lay “‘witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is
limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the
perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’
testimony of the determination of a fact in issue.” Evid.R. 701. Such testimony “is
not objectionable solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
trier of fact.” Evid.R. 704.
After careful review, we find nothing particularly objectionable
regarding Widok’s testimony that Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the amended
complaint did not pertain to Scouloukas. Widok’s responses during his deposition
were based on his perception of events and were helpful in explaining the scope of
his allegations.
Moreover, even if this court were to ignore Widok’s own
characterization of his claims against Scouloukas during his deposition, we find no
evidence in the record to suggest that Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 applied to
Scouloukas. As stated, Counts 1 through 8 of the amended complaint relate to the
alleged promises made to Widok by Mary, and there is no language in the complaint,
or evidence attached to the brief in opposition, to suggest Scouloukas was a party to,
or otherwise liable for, the alleged promises of Mary. Accordingly, we find the trial
court did not error in granting summary judgment in favor of Scouloukas on Counts
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the amended complaint.
Regarding Counts 10, 12, 13 and 14, Widok argues the evidence
attached to his brief in opposition demonstrates that (1) “Scouloukas committed
spoliation of evidence,” (2) “the finding that equitable estoppel does not apply to
Scouloukas was error,” and (3) dismissal of the “interference and undue influence
[claims] as to Scouloukas on summary judgment was error.” We address these
claims separately.
a. Count 10 — Equitable Estoppel
As stated, Count 10 of the amended complaint asked the court to
“prevent the Estate and/or those intending to recover from the Estate to be estopped
from preventing Mr. Widok from presenting his proper claims and obtaining his
rightful monies.” On appeal, Widok contends that the trial court erred in
determining that the equitable estoppel claim does not apply to Scouloukas. Widok
suggests that there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding Scouloukas’s
role in the destruction of Joan’s will, his deletion of a recorded meeting with Mary
prior to her death, and his distribution of nonprobate assets.
After a review of the record, we find the trial court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of Scouloukas on Count 10 of the amended
complaint. As noted by the trial court, Scouloukas is not directly connected to the
estate, and is not an individual seeking to recover from the estate. Moreover, Widok
has not identified any evidence indicating that Scouloukas made a statement or
representation of fact to Widok that was misleading and detrimentally induced
Widok’s actual reliance.
b. Count 12 and 13 —Intentional Interference with Expectancy of
Inheritance and Undue Influence/ Fraud
As stated, Count 12 of the amended complaint alleged that one or
more of the defendants intentionally interfered with his expectancy of inheritance
from both Joan and Mary. Similarly, Count 13 of the amended complaint alleges
that one or more of the defendants improperly influenced Mary to change her will
“in her dying weeks,” and change the beneficiary designation on accounts under the
control of Scouloukas.
Scouloukas argued in his motion for summary judgment that he was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts 12 and 13 of the amended
complaint because “he never handled or dealt with the wills or probate assets of
Mary,” and “Widok testified that all nonprobate assets handled by Scouloukas were
transferred appropriately.”
In the course of this litigation, Widok deposed Scouloukas on
December 13, 2017, and questioned him extensively about his relationship with Joan
and Mary. Relevant to Counts 12 and 13, Scouloukas testified that while serving as
Joan and Mary’s financial advisor, he handled their nonprobate assets, and did not
discuss or otherwise review any written wills. (Scouloukas depo at 16.) Regarding
Mary’s nonprobate assets, Scouloukas testified that he modified the designated
beneficiaries pursuant to Mary’s directives, and that Widok was never a named
beneficiary of her nonprobate assets. (Id. at 35, 37, 50.)
Widok also provided extensive testimony regarding Scouloukas’s role
as Joan and Mary’s financial advisor and his handling of their nonprobate assets.
Widok did not dispute that all nonprobate assets handled by Scouloukas were
transferred appropriately, and in accordance with Mary’s wishes. (Widok depo. vol.
II., at 13, 18. 19.) Widok further conceded that he was not entitled to “a penny” of
the assets handled by Scouloukas, and that the “correct beneficiaries” received
Mary’s nonprobate assets in accordance with her wishes. (Id. at 8-9, 12, 18.)
Notwithstanding his own deposition testimony about Mary’s
nonprobate assets, Widok argued in his opposition brief that there remain genuine
issues of fact regarding whether Scouloukas intentionally interfered with, or unduly
influenced, Widok’s promised inheritance from both Joan and Mary. Specifically,
Widok maintained that Scouloukas, in conjunction with Mary, sought to take
advantage of monies received from Joan that never should have been part of the
nonprobate process. Widok alleged that Mary admitted to him prior to her death
that she sought the advice and guidance of Scouloukas regarding not only her
obligations to pay Widok what he was asking, but also what she should do about the
will that she took from Joan’s kitchen drawer, which did not name Mary or any of
the current beneficiaries, who have received the monies, as people to receive under
Joan’s will. Widok testified that Mary confessed to him as follows:
She showed the will to Joe Scouloukas. Joe told her that if she made
that will public, she would lose all the money that she was inheriting
and would get paid $300,000. Take the will and tear it up and destroy
it, which she did.
(Widok depo. vol. I., at 86.)
Thus, Widok submits that because Mary admitted that Scouloukas
advised her to destroy Joan’s will to further her own pecuniary interests, there is a
factual question as to whether Scouloukas interfered with his inheritance through
Joan’s will, and whether Scouloukas participated in the decision not to pay Widok
the monies promised to him by Mary, despite his valid contractual claims.
For the reasons previously discussed, we find there remain genuine
issues of material fact regarding whether Scouloukas conspired with Mary to destroy
Joan’s will after reviewing the instrument, and if so, whether Scouloukas’s conduct
constituted an intentional interference with Widok’s expectancy of inheritance
and/or undue influence. To be clear, there is no evidence to suggest that Scouloukas
interfered with, or otherwise unduly influenced, the distribution of Mary’s
nonprobate assets. However, there is no dispute that Scouloukas had a professional
interest in the assets that were distributed to his client when Joan died intestate.
And, there is competing evidence regarding whether Joan’s will was destroyed — an
instrument that may have greatly affected the breadth of Mary’s nonprobate assets.
Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of Scouloukas on Counts 12 and 13 of the amended
complaint.
c. Count 14 — Spoliation of Evidence
To establish a claim for spoliation of evidence, a plaintiff must prove
the following:
(1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) that the
defendant knew that litigation exists or is probable, (3) willful
destruction of evidence by the defendant designed to disrupt the
plaintiff’s case, (4) actual disruption of the plaintiff’s case, and (5)
damages proximately caused by the defendant’s actions.
Elliott-Thomas v. Smith, 154 Ohio St.3d 11, 2018-Ohio-1783, 110 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 10,
citing Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993).
“[C]auses of action for spoliation of evidence are designed to place
responsibility and accountability on parties who were actually in
possession of evidence that existed at one time but who later do not
provide this evidence and do not provide an adequate explanation for
failing to do so.”
Wheatley v. Marietta College, 2016-Ohio-949, 48 N.E.3d 587, ¶ 105 (4th Dist.),
quoting Keen v. Hardin Mem. Hosp., 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-03-08, 2003-Ohio-
6707, ¶ 16. “A spoliation claim cannot be based upon conjecture that evidence might
have existed and that a party might have destroyed it.” Id.In this case, Scouloukas testified that while serving as Mary’s
financial advisor, she changed her nonprobate beneficiaries multiple times.
Scouloukas explained that Mary originally started with seven beneficiaries and
eventually settled on three beneficiaries. (Scouloukas depo. at 34). Prior to the final
designation of beneficiaries, Scouloukas attempted to record a conversation with
Mary, with her consent. (Id. at 35). During this meeting, the only thing that was
discussed was changing the seven beneficiaries to three. (Id. at. 36, 37). Scouloukas
testified that he does not have a recording of the meeting because he either did not
actually record the meeting or he inadvertently recorded over the meeting. (Id. at
35). Scouloukas testified that he only attempted to record one meeting with Mary.
(Id. at 35, 36).
After careful review of the record, we find Widok’s spoliation claim
against Scouloukas fails as a matter of law. Beyond mere conjecture, Widok has not
presented any evidence to rebut Scouloukas’s testimony that the recorded meeting
was limited to a discussion with Mary regarding her designation of nonprobate
beneficiaries. As stated, Widok was never a beneficiary of Mary’s nonprobate assets.
Because Widok had no personal or legal interest in Scouloukas’s conversation with
Mary about the designation of her nonprobate assets, there is no factual basis to
suggest that Scouloukas knew litigation involving Widok was probable.
Moreover, Widok has not pointed to any affirmative evidence to
show that Scouloukas willfully destroyed the recording to impede Widok’s case.
Speculation and allegations that evidence was willfully destroyed so as to disrupt the
party’s case will not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact that precludes
summary judgment. See Fifth Third Bank v. Gen. Bag Corp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 92783, 2010-Ohio-2086, ¶ 42 (upholding trial court’s decision to deny motion
to amend complaint to include spoliation of evidence claim when appellants offered
no evidence that opposing party acted willfully); Sutliff v. Cleveland Clinic Found.,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91337, 2009-Ohio-352, ¶ 33 (implying that mere destruction
of evidence does not lead to natural conclusion that evidence was willfully destroyed
and stating that a party’s speculation that evidence was willfully destroyed is not
sufficient to prevent summary judgment; instead, party must produce evidence). In
addition, speculation that willfully destroyed evidence would have helped the
plaintiff’s case is insufficient. Tomas v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 79 Ohio App.3d
624, 633, 607 N.E.2d 944 (10th Dist.1992).
On appeal, Widok does not reference any specific evidence to support
his assertion that Scouloukas “either intentionally or recklessly destroyed the
evidence” to disrupt his case. Rather, Widok speculates that “there was likely willful
destruction by Scouloukas designed to disrupt [Widok]’s case” and that the
information contained on the recording “was likely germane.” (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, Widok does not direct this court to any evidence that the alleged
destruction of the recording actually disrupted his case. In fact, Widok conceded
during his deposition that he “[has] no idea what would be on [the] cassette” that
was used to record the meeting between Scouloukas and Mary. (Widok depo. vol.
II., at 18.) Thus, Widok relies exclusively upon suppositions, which are insufficient
to create a genuine issue of material fact. Continenza v. Tablack, 7th Dist. Mahoning
No. 02CA250, 2003-Ohio-6719, ¶ 45; Wheeler v. Wise, 133 Ohio App.3d 564, 574,
729 N.E.2d 413 (10th Dist.1999).
Widok’s fifth assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled
in part. His seventh and eighth assignments of error are overruled in the entirety.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings concerning Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 against the
Estate, and Counts 12 and 13 against Scouloukas.
It is ordered that appellant and appellees share the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry
this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR