Candlewood Custom Homes, Inc. v. Saunders

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed a judgment awarding Candlewood Custom Homes, Inc. $20,544 on an unjust-enrichment claim arising from a residential construction agreement. The court addressed the Saunders defendants’ challenges to the denial of a new trial and relief from judgment based on a magistrate’s campaign contribution to opposing counsel’s election opponent, as well as related claims concerning breach of contract, slander of title, and unjust enrichment. The appeal also involved Candlewood’s challenges to the reduction of damages and denial of prejudgment interest.

Holdings

1. A magistrate's $100 campaign contribution to the primary-election opponent of a party's counsel, without evidence of a substantial political relationship, personal bias, prejudice, or actual influence on the proceeding, does not require disqualification and does not constitute an irregularity or good cause warranting a new trial.
2. Relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) was properly denied because the Saunderses failed to establish a qualifying reason for relief, including any required disqualification of the magistrate.
3. A party may recover in unjust enrichment when an express agreement fails for lack of a genuine meeting of the minds, even though the parties entered a written construction agreement.
4. A party that fails to state with particularity an objection to a magistrate's factual finding or legal conclusion waives that issue on appeal, except for plain error; failure to provide a transcript or affidavit further limits review of factual findings.
5. The Saunderses failed to establish that Candlewood breached Ohio's duty to perform residential construction in a workmanlike manner.
6. The Saunderses were not entitled to recover for slander of title because they failed to establish malice or reckless disregard, and the trial court also found no proven actual or special damages.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Candlewood's unjust-enrichment award by $5,000, the value of punch-out work Candlewood did not complete.
8. A judgment for unjust enrichment does not entitle the prevailing party to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) or R.C. 1343.03(A) on the facts presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Saunderses' Civ.R. 59(A) motion for a new trial based on the magistrate's alleged failure to disqualify herself.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Saunderses' Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment.
3. Whether the trial court plainly erred by awarding Candlewood damages for unjust enrichment despite the existence of a written construction agreement.
4. Whether the Saunderses established a breach of the duty to perform construction work in a workmanlike manner.
5. Whether the Saunderses established a claim for slander of title.
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reducing Candlewood's unjust-enrichment award by $5,000 for uncompleted punch-out work.
7. Whether Candlewood was entitled to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) or R.C. 1343.03(A) on its unjust-enrichment award.

Disposition

affirmed