Zeedyk v. 5C's Drying

2026-Ohio-618 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District · February 23, 2026 · No. 4-25-05

Summary

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals reviewed consolidated foreclosure, contract, fraud, slander-of-title, and related claims arising from agricultural financing and business transactions. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the trial court’s judgment, including rulings concerning foreclosure of a personal residence, damages related to the sale of a farming operation, and claims involving a hauling business.

Holdings

  1. The foreclosure judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the note and mortgage were invalid for want of consideration.
  2. The damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court failed to offset the approximately $150,000 undisclosed lease liability against the undisputed $200,000 seller holdback credit.
  3. No enforceable hauling-business contract was established because the parties lacked mutual assent on definite essential terms and a necessary third-party consent to transfer the hauling contracts was never obtained.
  4. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding the plaintiffs unsegregated attorney fees for the entire litigation; it was required to award only fees attributable to claims for which fee shifting was authorized.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court's foreclosure judgment on the Clelands' personal residence was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the defendants proved a want of consideration for the note and mortgage.
  2. Whether the trial court properly calculated damages for breach of the agreement concerning the sale of 5C's Farms, including application of the undisputed $200,000 seller holdback credit.
  3. Whether the parties formed an enforceable express or implied-in-fact contract concerning the sale or assignment of the hauling business and related contracts.
  4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the plaintiffs all requested attorney fees without segregating fees incurred on recoverable foreclosure claims from fees incurred on unrelated claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (56)

  • Lump v. Larson, 2015-Ohio-469, ¶¶ 9-10 (3d Dist.)(followed)
  • San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 2014-Ohio-2071, ¶ 89 (8th Dist.)(followed)
  • Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Freed, 2012-Ohio-5941, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.)(followed)
  • Doerschuk v. KLG Mobile Intensive Co., 2019-Ohio-5248, ¶ 11 (7th Dist.)(followed)
  • Warnecke v. Chaney, 2011-Ohio-3007, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.)(followed)
  • C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978)(followed)
  • Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80-81 (1984)(followed)
  • Santomieri v. Mangen, 2018-Ohio-1443, ¶¶ 13, 16 (3d Dist.)(followed)
  • Morgan v. Mikhail, 2008-Ohio-4598, ¶ 66 (10th Dist.)(followed)
  • Burke v. State, 104 Ohio St. 220, 222 (1922)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 56.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Third Appellate District Ohio Court Of Appeals Third Appellate District