Balfour v. Haymon

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20AP-327,No. 20AP-323,20AP-323
• Citation: 179 N.E.3d 169
• Parties: Debora K. BALFOUR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph V. HAYMON et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

179 N.E.3d 169

Debora K. BALFOUR, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Joseph V. HAYMON et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 20AP-323

No. 20AP-327

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered on September 30, 2021

On brief: Hrabcak & Company, L.P.A., Michael Hrabcak, Worthington, and Gregory A. Wetzel, for appellee. Argued: Gregory A. Wetzel.

On brief: O'Reilly Law Offices, and Michael J. O'Reilly, Pickerington, for appellant Joseph V. Haymon. Argued: Michael J. O'Reilly.

DECISION

JAMISON, J.

{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Joseph V. Haymon, Fenwick and Associates LLC, and Bungaplex LLC, appeal from two separate judgments issued by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Debora K. Balfour. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} There is no dispute that on or about September 12, 2014, Balfour and Haymon entered into an agreement whereby Balfour provided certain funds to Haymon, in return for Haymon's promise to perform certain renovations to real property owned by an Ohio limited liability company known as Fenwick and Associates, LLC ("Fenwick"). Fenwick is wholly owned and operated by Haymon.¹ The subject real property is located at 410 East 15th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio.

{¶ 3} On April 26, 2017, Fenwick executed a quit-claim deed ("Balfour deed"), purporting to transfer all of Fenwick's ownership interest in real property to Balfour for the sum of $25,000. The Balfour deed, attached to Balfour's complaint as Exhibit B, was not recorded until August 29, 2017.

{¶ 4} There is no dispute that on that same date, August 29, 2017, Fenwick also executed a quit-claim deed ("Bungaplex deed"), purporting to transfer an ownership interest in the same real property to an Ohio limited liability known as Bungaplex LLC ("Bungaplex"), in consideration of the sum of $25,000. Bungaplex is also wholly owned and operated by Haymon. The quit-claim deed was recorded on August 29, 2017.

{¶ 5} On July 19, 2019, Balfour filed an 11 count complaint against Haymon, Fenwick, and Bungaplex. According to Balfour's complaint, she loaned Haymon or his entities a total of $143,000 for the renovation project, but Haymon and his entities never completed the renovations as promised. The complaint sought a declaration as to the validity of the competing deeds to the property and an order of ejectment against Haymon. The remaining counts alleged fraud, conversion, breach of contract, slander of title, lis pendens, civil theft, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. The allegations of the complaint specific to the claims for declaratory judgment are as follows:

17. At the time of the Bungaplex Deed, Defendant Fenwick no longer had any rights, title, or interest in the Subject Property; it had already conveyed those to Plaintiff Balfour.

18. The Bungaplex Deed was fraudulent and is void on its face.

19. There is a real and justiciable controversy that exists as to the validity of the Balfour Deed, the invalidity of the Bungaplex Deed, and the ownership of the Subject Property; and speedy relief is necessary for the preservation of Plaintiff Balfour's rights and interests in the Subject Property.

20. Plaintiff Balfour's rights and interest in the Subject Property may be otherwise lost or impaired if Defendants continue to be in possession and act as owner of the Subject Property.

21. Plaintiff Balfour respectfully requests the Court declare the Balfour Deed to be valid, declare the Bungaplex Deed to be invalid, declare Plaintiff Balfour is the owner of the Subject Property in fee simple absolute, and order the transfer of the Subject Property to Plaintiff Balfour.

{¶ 6} Appellants’ answer contains the following admissions and denials:

17. This Defendant denies the allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 17.

18. This Defendant denies the allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 18.

19. This Defendant in response to Complaint Paragraph 19 admits that a declaratory judgment is needed as the parties disagree on many issues but Defendant disagrees on what the Court should declare.

20. This Defendant denies the allegations contained in Complaint Paragraph 20.

21. This Defendant in response to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint states that a declaratory judgment is needed as the parties disagree on many issues, but Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff's assertion as to what the Court should declare.

{¶ 7} On February 7, 2020, Balfour filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), on her claims for declaratory relief and ejectment. On March 3, 2020, appellants filed a response wherein appellants claimed that it was the parties understanding that the Balfour deed was executed as security for the funds she advanced for renovations. The trial court issued a decision and entry on March 16, 2020, granting Balfour's motion for judgment in the pleadings. The trial court made the following determination as to the claim for declaratory relief:

Due to the conveyance in the Balfour Deed, Defendant Fenwick had no interest in the Subject Property to later convey to Defendant Bungaplex. The Balfour Deed quit-claimed the entire subject property to Plaintiff Balfour "together with all the improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging." Ex. B. The only reservation is mineral rights. Thus, the property rights at issue in this case were deeded to Plaintiff Balfour.

Moreover, Defendant Haymon and Fenwick, as the grantor of the deed, are bound by the deed under the doctrine of estopple by deed. Defendant Haymon and Fenwick are bound by the Balfour Deed's provisions and are "estopped to deny their legal effect." * * * Thus, Defendants have no grounds to deny the Subject Property was conveyed to Plaintiff Balfour.

Based on the above analysis, The Balfour Deed is superior to the Bungaplex Deed because Defendant Fenwick had no interest to subsequently convey in the Bungaplex Deed, and Defendants are estopped from denying the conveyance to Plaintiff Balfour.

(Mar. 16, 2020 Decision & Entry at 4-5.)

{¶ 8} The trial court went on to issue the following ruling on the ejectment action:

As shown in declaratory judgment analysis, Plaintiff Balfour has a legal estate in the real property and a possessory right through the Balfour Deed. The identity of the real property has been established with certainty in the Balfour Deed and Plaintiffs Complaint which provided the Subject Property's physical address and Franklin County Permanent Parcel Number. Defendants have kept Plaintiff Balfour from possessing the real property by Defendant Haymon residing at the Subject Property when he has no legal right to do so. Thus, the statutory requirements have been satisfied and Plaintiff Balfour is entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

(Decision & Entry at 6.)²

{¶ 9} On May 14, 2020, the trial court granted appellants’ May 13, 2020 motion to stay execution of the ejectment. On May 18, 2020, Balfour filed a motion, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(2), seeking an order dismissing the remaining claims in her complaint, without prejudice. The trial court granted Balfour's motion on May 19, 2020 and dismissed Balfour's remaining claims against appellants, without prejudice.

{¶ 10} Appellants timely appealed to this court from the two judgments issued by the trial court. On June 23, 2020, this court issued a journal entry consolidating case Nos. 20AP-323 and 20AP-327 "for purposes of * * * oral argument, and determination." Accordingly, we shall determine both cases in a single decision.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶ 11} Appellants assigns the following as trial court error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT IN GRANTING APPELLEE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WHEN DEFENDANT HAD PLED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THE APPELLEE NEITHER ADDRESSED NOR RESOLVED.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO USE A MOTION TO DISMISS, TO DISMISS LESS THAN ALL CLAIMS INCLUDED IN THE COMPLAINT.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSTRUING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ASSERTED BY DEFENDANT AS COUNTERCLAIMS, WHEN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO DISMISS HER REMAINING CLAIMS.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUMMARILY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOME BUT NOT ALL COUNTS, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON EJECTMENT WHEN THE DEED IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED AS A MORTGAGE.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶ 12} "A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C), ‘[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial.’ " Carasalina, LLC v. Smith Phillips & Assocs. , 10th Dist. No. 13AP-1027, 2014-Ohio-2423, 2014 WL 2573466, ¶ 8, quoting Franks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 195 Ohio App.3d 114, 2011-Ohio-2048, 958 N.E.2d 1253, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.) "In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court is permitted to consider both the complaint and answer." Carasalina at ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996). See also State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar, 164 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-5483, 172 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8. When presented with such a motion, a trial court must construe all the material allegations of the pleadings as true, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Peterson v. Teodosio , 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165, 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973) ; Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 92 Ohio St.3d 574, 581, 752 N.E.2d 267 (2001). A motion for judgment on the pleadings must "be granted when, after viewing the allegations and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Brown v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections , 79 Ohio App.3d 474, 477, 607 N.E.2d 848 (6th Dist. 1992), citing Peterson at 174, 297 N.E.2d 113.

{¶ 13} "There is little...