DocketNumber: No. 72081
Citation Numbers: 704 N.E.2d 54, 123 Ohio App. 3d 301
Judges: <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Filed Date: 11/17/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the court of common pleas, and the briefs and oral arguments of counsel.
The issue in this appeal is whether a claim for specific performance on a real estate purchase is exempt from a contractual arbitration provision under R.C.
The purchase agreement required plaintiff to execute a series of interest-free promissory notes in which he agreed to pay on demand $10,000 at the start of excavation, $10,000 when the house was "under roof," and $50,000 upon closing the sale of plaintiff's current house. When CDC demanded the final $50,000 payment, plaintiff could not comply because he had not sold his current house. Plaintiff asked CDC to continue the promissory note. CDC demanded cash payment and asked plaintiff to reaffirm his intention to purchase the house. Plaintiff countered by claiming that he stood ready to complete the purchase of the house by extending the promissory note. CDC subsequently sold the house to the Klonowskis, and returned plaintiff's funds on deposit.
In response to plaintiff's action, CDC filed a counterclaim for slander of title. CDC asked the court to refer the matter to arbitration as provided in the *Page 303 purchase agreement. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the matter pending arbitration.
We find that the trial court erred by referring the matter to arbitration. R.C.
Although there are no Ohio cases directly on point, in Barnesv. McKellar (1994),
On appeal, the superior court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly refused to apply res judicata because the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide a claim for title to real property, stating that no matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration "which involves title to real property."Id. at 603,
The Pennsylvania statute is nearly identical to R.C.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
BLACKMON, P.J., KARPINSKI and PATTON, JJ., concur. *Page 304