Berks Title Ins. Co. v. Haendiges, C 81-1308.
Decision Date | 22 June 1984 |
Docket Number | No. C 81-1308.,C 81-1308. |
Citation | 591 F. Supp. 879 |
Parties | BERKS TITLE INSURANCE CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Roger M. HAENDIGES, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Robert F. Linton, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Stephen M. Darlington, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant Fulton & Goss, Inc.
Michael F. Waiwood, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants Roger and Lee Haendiges.
This is an action for the recovery of money allegedly due for the breach of various related real estate contracts. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiffs' complaint essentially claims that Berks Title Insurance Co. (Berks), as subrogee to the rights and remedies of plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Metropolitan), is entitled to recovery of certain sums it expended in defense and as a consequence of an action in state court known as S & S Ceiling Partition Co. v. Calvon Corporation, et al., Case No. 30507, 75 CIV 0725 (Ct. Common Pleas, Medina Cty). That action arose as a result of the alleged breaches of contracts by the defendants Fulton & Goss, Inc. (Fulton & Goss), Roger M. Haendiges and Lee Haendiges, in incurring mechanics' liens on the real estate involved.
Defendant Fulton & Goss has answered, counter-claimed against Berks, and cross-claimed against the Haendiges. The Haendiges have answered, denying any breach of contract or liability.
Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment on behalf of each party. William Steck, an original named defendant, has been dismissed pursuant to plaintiffs' notice of dismissal. Based on the pleadings and accompanying affidavits, it appears that there exist no genuine issues of material fact.
The essential facts in this case are that Roger Haendiges was the owner of a parcel of land on which he desired to construct a warehouse. Haendiges contacted Fulton & Goss, a mortgage broker, to obtain a permanent loan. The usual procedure for this type of transaction is for the mortgage broker to obtain a loan commitment from a permanent lender. The permanent lender ordinarily only agrees to loan upon completion of the building; the building being part of the security for the loan.
On September 12, 1973 Metropolitan issued a "commitment" to a "first mortgage Loan" in the amount of $890,000.00. On September 17, 1973, Fulton & Goss issued its "Mortgage Loan Commitment" for $890,000.00 to Roger M. Haendiges. On September 20, 1973, Fulton & Goss accepted Metropolitan's commitment by signature, representing that its own commitment had been accepted by Haendiges.
In pertinent part, the commitment from Metropolitan stated:
This commitment was set to expire on December 12, 1974.
In pertinent part, the commitment between Fulton & Goss and Haendiges stated:
On November 6, 1973, Cleveland Trust Company executed a construction loan as interim financing to Roger Haendiges as "Borrower" and Fulton & Goss. The loan instrument, which was subsequently recorded on November 21, 1973, specifically recognized that Haendiges had obtained a mortgage loan commitment from Fulton & Goss and that Fulton & Goss had obtained a mortgage loan commitment from Metropolitan. These commitments were attached to the Cleveland Trust instrument and incorporated by reference. The instrument then stated:
NOW, THEREFORE, Lender agrees to lend to Borrower the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($890,000.00), secured by a mortgage on the above described land for the purpose of constructing thereon a one-story industrial building and parking lot and Borrower agrees to construct said building and parking lot in accordance with Plans and Specifications approved by Lender and Fulton; Borrower further agrees to complete said building and parking lot in compliance with the covenants and terms and conditions of the Commitment from Fulton to Borrower dated September 17, 1973, said Commitment from Metropolitan to Fulton dated September 12, 1973 and the Building Loan Agreement entered into by and between Borrower and Lender dated ______, 1973; Fulton agrees to comply with the covenants, conditions and terms of the Commitment issued to it by Metropolitan and further that if the one-story industrial building and parking lot is completed in compliance with its Commitment to Borrower and in compliance with the Commitment to Fulton from Metropolitan that it will cause to be paid to Lender the principal balance of its construction loan no later than October 12, 1974 or any extension of such date as agreed upon by...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Illis v. United Steelworkers of America
-
American Zurich Ins. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 3:04 CV 7263.
...241, 593 N.E.2d 354 (1991)). This proposition has been accepted by at least one court in this District. See Berks Title Ins. Co., v. Haendiges, 591 F.Supp. 879, 889 (N.D.Ohio 1984). The Court, however, is guided by the case of Dalessio v. Williams, 111 Ohio App.3d 192, 675 N.E.2d 1299 (1996......
-
Dalessio v. Williams
...Contrs., Inc. v. Enting Water Conditioning Sys., Inc. (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 228, 241, 593 N.E.2d 354, 363; Berks Title Ins. Co. v. Haendiges (N.D.Ohio 1984), 591 F.Supp. 879, 889, affirmed in part and reversed in part (C.A.6, 1985), 772 F.2d Although the Williamses present an attractive ar......
-
Ralph Dalessio, Trustee v. John B. Williams , Trustee, 96-LW-2592
...part (C.A. 6, 1985), 772 F.2d 278. Although the Williamses present an attractive argument, we ultimately reject it. The results in S & D and Berks were each dependent upon a finding of a breach of Such a determination is a necessary prerequisite to an award of attorney fees. See Browning-Fe......