Summary
The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed a summary judgment ruling in a construction-contract dispute between Nahas Construction Corp. and Mike and Janine Brustoski. The court held that deemed admissions established breach and justified withholding the final payment, but did not establish the amount of damages under Civ.R. 56. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the parties' respective breach-of-contract claims based on admissions deemed admitted under Civ.R. 36(A)(1).
- Whether the deemed admissions and other materials established the amount of damages caused by Nahas's breach for purposes of summary judgment under Civ.R. 56.
Holdings
- Written admissions, including admissions deemed admitted under Civ.R. 36(A)(1), are permissible evidence under Civ.R. 56(C) and may support summary judgment when they establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
- The deemed admissions established that Nahas failed to perform the construction work in accordance with the contract and that the Brustoskis were entitled to withhold the final payment; therefore, summary judgment on the breach-of-contract issues was proper.
- Summary judgment was improper as to the amount of damages because the Brustoskis did not submit Civ.R. 56(C)-compliant evidence establishing the amount of damages caused by Nahas's breach, and the deemed admissions did not admit that amount.
Key quotations
“This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo.” (¶ 10)
“The admissions deemed admitted did not admit the amount of damages caused by Nahas’s breach of contract.” (¶ 18)
“The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings to determine damages.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Nahas Construction Corp. contracted with Mike and Janine Brustoski to build a single-story addition to their residence for $74,483, subject to change orders. The Brustoskis withheld the final payment, alleging that Nahas performed defective and incomplete work, failed to follow engineered drawings, and damaged their driveway. The Brustoskis served requests for admissions, and Nahas did not timely respond; the admissions were therefore deemed admitted. The trial court relied on those admissions to find breach and awarded the Brustoskis $7,608 in net damages, but the appellate court concluded that the admissions did not establish the amount of damages.
Procedural history
Nahas sued to recover an alleged unpaid final contract balance of $23,612.73. The Brustoskis counterclaimed for defective workmanship, deviations from engineered drawings, and property damage. After Nahas failed to timely respond to requests for admissions, the trial court deemed the admissions admitted, denied Nahas leave to file late responses, granted summary judgment to the Brustoskis, and awarded them $7,608 in net damages. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on breach but reversed and remanded for determination of damages.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings to determine the amount of damages caused by Nahas's breach of contract.