Silberhorn v. Flemco, L.L.C.

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed summary judgment for Patricia Silberhorn in her claims concerning an invalid mechanic’s lien, slander of title, and Flemco, L.L.C.’s breach-of-contract counterclaim. The court held that Flemco failed to comply with statutory service requirements for the mechanic’s lien, that deemed admissions supported the slander-of-title judgment, and that Silberhorn had no contractual duty to pay Flemco because the agreement required a third-party foundation to pay.

Holdings

1. A mechanic's lien is invalid and unenforceable when the lien claimant fails to serve the property owner through a method required by R.C. 1311.19(A). Because Flemco admitted serving Silberhorn only by regular U.S. mail, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and summary judgment declaring the lien invalid was proper.
2. Silberhorn was entitled to summary judgment on her slander-of-title claim because the deemed admissions established publication of a false, maliciously or recklessly published statement disparaging her title, and her affidavit established attorney fees incurred in the quiet-title action as actual or special damages.
3. Flemco could not recover from Silberhorn for failure to pay for the construction work because the Work Agreement imposed the payment obligation on the Foundation, not Silberhorn. Summary judgment for Silberhorn on Flemco's counterclaim was therefore proper.
4. Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can reach only a conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Silberhorn's quiet-title and declaratory-judgment claims because Flemco failed to comply with the statutory service requirements for a mechanic's lien.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Silberhorn's slander-of-title claim based on Flemco's deemed admissions and Silberhorn's evidence of attorney fees incurred to quiet title.
3. Whether Flemco could maintain a breach-of-contract claim against Silberhorn for nonpayment when the Work Agreement required the Foundation, rather than Silberhorn, to pay Flemco.
4. Whether the trial court properly applied the summary-judgment standard under Ohio Civil Rule 56.

Disposition

affirmed