Rose v. Jones

[Cite as Rose v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-1726.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
SANDRA D. ROSE : William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: John W. Wise, J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 2011CA00076
:
:
OMAR E. JONES, et al., : OPINION
Defendants-Appellees
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Massillon Municipal
Court, Stark County, Ohio, Case No.
2010CVF1747
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 16, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
KEVIN R. L’HOMMEDIEU AMANDA M. PAAR
53 W. Case Drive 220 Market Avenue South, 8th Floor
Hudson, Ohio 44236 Canton, Ohio 44702
[Cite as Rose v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-1726.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Sandra Rose, appeals from the March 2, 2011, Order of
the Massillon Municipal Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On October 5, 2006, appellees Omar E. Jones and Nancy J. Mathias
signed a land installment contract to purchase specified property in Massillon, Ohio from
appellant Sandra Rose fka Sandra Gehring, appellee Jones’ sister, for $85,000.00.
Previously, the two had rented the house from appellant. The land installment contract
stated, in part, that appellees “will not make any structural change or remodel the
existing building or add any new building thereon without first securing written
permission of the Vendor herein,…”
{¶3} On July 21, 2010, appellant filed a complaint against appellees seeking
forfeiture of the land installment contract. Appellant, in her complaint, alleged that
appellees had violated the land installment contract by removing part of the kitchen wall,
removing and replacing kitchen cabinets, and turning a bedroom into a laundry room
and running plumbing throught the floors of such room. Appellant further alleged that
appellees had violated the contract by creating an apartment in the basement and
adding a pocket door to the entrance to the kitchen, removing a living room closet and
replacing it with shelving and converting the house from a 3 bedroom house into a 2
bedroom house.
{¶4} Appellees, on August 19, 2010, filed an answer and counterclaim.
Appellees, in their counterclaim, alleged that since the execution of the land contract
and with appellant’s knowledge, they had replaced water damaged kitchen cabinets,
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 3
adding plumbing fixtures in a wall outlet in one bedroom to facilitate a washer and dryer
in that bedroom, and added removable shelving to a living room closet because the
doors of the closet were falling off. Appellees maintained that the above were non-
structural improvements and that appellant had filed suit against them in order to regain
possession of the house in order to finance the purchase of a recreational vehicle.
Appellees further alleged that, prior to the land installment contract, they had created an
apartment in the basement and added a pocket door to the kitchen with appellant’s
knowledge. Appellees alleged abuse of process and frivolous conduct pursuant to R.C.
2323.51 as well as unjust enrichment.
{¶5} On December 9, 2010, appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Appellees, in their motion, alleged that the changes mentioned in appellant’s complaint
were not structural changes, were made prior to the inception of the land contract
and/or were made with appellant’s knowledge. In support of their motion, they attached
appellant’s deposition and the affidavit of appellee Omar E. Jones. Appellant filed a
response to such motion on December 30, 2010. Appellant, in her response, alleged
that it was premature for the court to find, as a matter of law, that there had been no
structural damages to the subject real estate and argued that she was entitled to
provide expert testimony as to such issue.
{¶6} As memorialized in an Order filed on January 4, 2011, the trial court
ordered appellant to provide the court, by January 31, 2011, with evidence from an
expert witness that the subject property had been diminished in value, that there had
been structural damage due to appellees’ remodeling and “to what extent in monetary
terms the property has been damaged due to Defendants’ actions.”
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 4
{¶7} On January 18, 2011, appellant, with leave of court, filed an amended
complaint for forfeiture of the land installment contract and breach of contract.
{¶8} Appellant, on January 27, 2011, filed a response to the trial court’s
January 4, 2011, order. Appellant, in her response, stated that a home improvement
contractor retained by her had reported that there had been no structural damage done
to the property as a result of appellees’ remodeling. However, appellant attached an
affidavit to her response in which she stated that appellees had not obtained her written
permission prior to the remodeling.
{¶9} A bench trial was set for March 2, 2011. Pursuant to an Order filed on
March 2, 2011, the trial court granted appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment prior to
the commencement of trial. The trial court, in its Order noted that no damages had been
submitted to the trial court. In a separate Order filed the same day, the trial court
granted appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that there were no structural
damages or diminished value of the subject property. With respect to appellees’
counterclaim, the trial court awarded appellees $4,000.00 in attorney fees, plus interest,
paid to defend the frivolous conduct.
{¶10} Appellant now raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶11} “I. BECAUSE THE LAND INSTALLMENT CONTRACT PROHIBITED
JONES FROM MAKING ‘ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGE OR REMODEL’ TO THE
HOME, THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR JONES
BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT THE CHANGES JONES MADE DID NOT ALSO
‘DAMAGE’ THE PROPERTY OR ‘DIMINISH’ ITS VALUE.
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 5
{¶12} “II. THE COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES TO JONES
BECAUSE ROSE’S CLAIMS HAD MERIT, WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS, AND SHOULD
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROCEED TO TRIAL.”
I
{¶13} Appellant, in her first assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred
in granting appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment. We agree.
{¶14} Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the
unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court.
Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36, 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). As
such, we must refer to Civ.R. 56(C) which provides, in pertinent part:
{¶15} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
evidence in the pending case and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the
action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be
rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence
or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that
conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is
made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most
strongly in the party's favor.”
{¶16} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter summary judgment
if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for summary
judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its motion
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 6
and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion that the
non-moving party has no evidence to prove its case. The moving party must specifically
point to some evidence which demonstrates the non-moving party cannot support its
claim. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the non-moving
party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of material fact for
trial. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 1997-Ohio-259, 674 N.E.2d 1164, citing
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996-Ohio-107, 662 N.E.2d 264.
{¶17} As is stated above, the trial court, in its March 2, 2011, Order, granted
summary judgment to appellees on the basis that there was no structural damage to the
subject property and because the subject property was not diminished in value due to
appellees’ actions. Appellees now contend that the changes they made were not
structural and cite to Lakes v. Mayo, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-01-003, 2006-Ohio-6072 in
support of their argument.
{¶18} In Lakes, the court held that an interior door to an apartment building
created by cutting into a wall was not a structural change. In such case, the parties’ land
installment contract prohibited structural changes to the property without the vendor’s
written consent, but did not define such term. In Lakes, the court held, in relevant part,
as follows: “The contract does not define “structural.” Webster's Third New International
Dictionary provides two relevant definitions of “structural.” Definition “1 a” provides as
follows: “of or relating to structure or a structure; affecting structure; used in building
structures; constructional [.]” Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993), 2266.
Definition “1 b” provides as follows: “of or relating to the load-bearing members or
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 7
scheme of a building as opposed to the screening or ornamental elements[.]” Id.Definition “1 b” gives the following examples of structural elements: “floor joists, rafters,
wall and partition studs, supporting columns ... foundations [.]” Id.{¶19} “According to the municipal court, Lakes failed to prove that the creation of
the doorway was a “structural” change. The court apparently interpreted “structural”
consistent with definition “1 b” above. We find no error in that interpretation. Definition “1
a” is extremely broad, and likely does not reflect what the parties intended. Applying the
“1 b” definition, the record supports the municipal court's decision that the Mayos did not
materially breach the contract's provision regarding “structural changes.” In his
testimony, Shelby Mayo described the wall he altered as a “partition wall.” Lakes, the
only other witness to testify, did not testify that the wall was a load-bearing wall, or was
otherwise “structural” within the meaning of definition “1b.” Accordingly, we reject
appellant's argument regarding the Mayos' alleged structural change.” Id at paragraphs
10-11.
{¶20} However, in addition to prohibiting structural changes without appellant’s
written consent, the land installment contract in the case sub judice prohibited appellees
from “remodeling” the existing building without first securing written permission from
appellant. The word “remodel” is defined as “to alter the structure of.” See Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition 1983). The word “remodel” usually
connotes alteration to a structure which could include changes to the load bearing
members as well as lesser changes to the structure. And, we find that “remodel”
connotes lesser changes to a structure in the contract sub judice because of its use in
the sentence in addition to the “structural change” language. As is stated above,
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 8
appellant, in her complaint, alleged that appellees had violated the land installment
contract by removing part of the kitchen wall, removing and replacing kitchen cabinets,
turning a bedroom into a laundry room and running plumbing through the floors of such
room, creating an apartment in the basement and adding a pocket door to the entrance
to the kitchen, removing a living room closet and replacing it with shelving and
converting the house from a 3 bedroom house into a 2 bedroom house. Appellant, in an
affidavit filed with the trial court, stated that appellees had not obtained her written
permission prior to the remodeling.
{¶21} During her deposition, appellant, when asked when appellees removed
the kitchen wall, testified that she did not know. She further testified that the wall was
not removed during the time when appellees were renting the house from her, but had
no documentation to prove such assertion. During her deposition, she further testified
that changes to the basement were made while appellees were renting from her and
that the pocket door was installed right after the contract. She subsequently testified
that she did not know exactly when the pocket door was installed. Appellee Jones, in his
affidavit, stated that they partially removed a kitchen wall prior to entering into the land
contract. In his affidavit, he further stated that the pocket door was installed prior to
entering into the land contract and that the basement apartment was installed prior to
signing of the land contract.
{¶22} The changes to the basement were completed before execution of the
land installment contract and thus could not have been done in violation of the land
installment contract. While the pocket door and removal of the kitchen fall within the
definition of “remodeling” because they altered the existing structure, we find that there
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 9
is a dispute of fact as to when such changes were made. While appellant testified that
the kitchen wall was not removed while appellees were renting from her, appellee
Jones, in his affidavit, indicated that the kitchen wall was removed prior to the land
installment contract. While, in his affidavit, he indicated that the pocket door was
installed prior to entering into the land installment contract, appellant, during her
deposition, testified otherwise. We find, on such basis that there are genuine issues of
material fact as to when such changes were made and, that the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of appellees.
{¶23} Appellant’s first assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.
II
{¶24} Appellant, in her second assignment of error, argues that the trial court
erred in awarding attorney fees to appellees for defending the “frivolous conduct.”
Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00076 10
{¶25} Based on our disposition of appellant’s first assignment of error, we find
resolution of such issue to be premature.
{¶26} Accordingly, the judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court is reversed
and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
By: Edwards, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/d1130
[Cite as Rose v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-1726.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SANDRA D. ROSE :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
OMAR E. JONES, et al., :
:
Defendants-Appellees : CASE NO. 2011CA00076
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio, is reversed and this
matter is remanded to the Massillon Municipal Court for further proceedings. Costs
assessed to appellees.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES