Summary
The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of ARK Management, LLC, and Chaim Cohen on SRS 2019, LLC's breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, conversion, negligent-misrepresentation, and fraud claims. The court held that SRS invited any error concerning the enforceability of the management agreement, that Ohio's real-estate-licensing statutes did not provide SRS with a private cause of action for the requested relief, and that the defense verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court also held that SRS waived its request for attorney fees under Ohio Revised Code 2323.51 by failing to file the required motion within 30 days of judgment.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in recognizing an enforceable agreement between SRS and ARK Management for purposes of SRS's breach-of-contract claim because SRS asserted that claim under the agreement and relied on the agreement's expense-approval provision. A party may not obtain reversal based on an error it invited or induced.
- The defense verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. SRS failed to establish that expenses exceeding $500 lacked approval, that Cohen made actionable false representations about licensure or qualifications, or that the stated return-on-investment figures were fraudulent.
- SRS waived any claim for attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 by failing to file the motion required by R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) within 30 days after the final judgment. A request in a closing argument or proposed findings and conclusions is insufficient.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in treating the unsigned management agreement between SRS and ARK Management as valid and enforceable when SRS argued that the agreement was illegal under R.C. 4735.02.
- Whether the defense verdict on SRS's breach-of-contract, fraud, and misrepresentation claims was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether SRS was entitled to attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 for defending against the defamation counterclaim despite not filing a timely statutory motion.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- Hayes v. Mingo Properties, LLP, 2025-Ohio-378, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.)(applied)
- State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 203(applied)
- Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus(applied)
- R.P. Davis Constr. Co. v. Noll, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3126, *6 (12th Dist. June 21, 1993)(applied)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997)(applied)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983)(applied)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 17(applied)
- Bloom v. Bloom, 2020-Ohio-4107, ¶ 87 (11th Dist.)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.