Cahill v. Owens
| Citation | 2016 Ohio 4972,67 N.E.3d 1242 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15AP–925.,15AP–925. |
| Parties | Edward CAHILL, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Jason OWENS, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
On brief: The Fox Law Firm, LLC, and Justin M. Fox, Columbus, for appellant. Argued: Justin M. Fox.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Edward Cahill, appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court filed on September 10, 2015, following a bench trial. The judgment ordered defendant-appellee, Jason Owens, to pay $1,000 plus interest and costs and dismissed all of Cahill's other claims against both Owens and Owens' company, C & O Property Services ("C & O"). Because we find that the trial court erred in disposing of Cahill's unjust enrichment claim on the ground that Cahill failed to exercise "ordinary diligence," we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision.
{¶ 2} This case concerns the management and rental of a single-family residential home located on Belcher Drive in Columbus, Ohio. On September 15, 2014, Cahill, who was allegedly attorney-in-fact for the owner of the property (his mother), filed a complaint against Owens and C & O alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, all based on Owens' management of the property. Owens and C & O answered on October 6, 2014. On August 27, 2015, the parties tried the case to the bench of the Franklin County Municipal Court.
{¶ 3} Owens testified first in the trial as upon cross-examination. He explained that he is a general contractor and part owner of C & O, and that he is licensed and bonded to do contracting work within the city of Columbus. He also sometimes manages properties, collecting rent, and performing maintenance. In the four and a half years that C & O has been in business, he has managed three properties, including Cahill's.
{¶ 4} Owens testified that he first met Cahill at the beginning of July 2012 when Cahill asked him to finish a bathroom in a house Cahill was intending to let. Owens finished the bathroom and Cahill paid Owens $2,000.00 for his work. In the fall of that same year, Cahill contacted Owens again and asked him to repair a stoop at the same property. Once again, Owens did the work and Cahill paid him, by Owens' reckoning, approximately $2,000.00. Owens was also supposed to repair a window and was paid $1,000.00 for doing so, but admitted that he never repaired the window. Owens testified that in addition to the $2,000.00 he received for finishing the bathroom, he charged Cahill's credit card a total of $4,000.68 for the stoop, the (uncompleted) window repair, and other miscellaneous repairs.
{¶ 5} Owens later explained on direct examination that Cahill initially asked him to post an eviction notice, because the tenants of the house at the time of the stoop repair were behind in the payment of rent. Owens testified that he posted the notice and then was contacted by the tenants. The tenants said they had the necessary funds, and Owens relayed that information to Cahill who requested that Owens manage the property and make a lease with the tenants. The agreement between Owens and Cahill, according to Owens' testimony on cross, was that Owens would collect rent from the tenants, take care of the property, keep 10 percent of the rent as a fee for managing the property, and forward the balance to Cahill. In approximately 14 months as property manager, Owens collected $12,840 in rent and security deposit funds; yet, he never sent any of it to Cahill. However, Owens testified that he and Cahill had an understanding that Cahill would only get money for rent to the extent that rent monies exceeded the value of the services Owens was providing in the upkeep of the property—as it turned out, Cahill never received any money, because the house needed considerable upkeep. Owens admitted that he never billed Cahill for any services during the period in which he managed the property and only prepared invoices for the services he provided after the lawsuit was filed in the municipal court.
{¶ 6} The invoices were introduced into the record as exhibits at trial. The services and fees Owens documented in the invoices he prepared after suit was filed are as follows:
| [1.] Draft lease | $150.00 | ||
| [2.] Management fee | $1,144.00 | ||
| [3.] Lawn care at $75 per mow | $2,400.00 | ||
| [4.] Replace hot and cold shower valves | $250.00 | ||
| [5.] Replace locks, repair closet doors, replace porch light, install smoke detectors, deliver and install refrigerator, replace hot water shut-off valve for washer, repair main water shut-off valve, replace furnace gas valve, repair toilet, repair electrical outlets in bedrooms, repair hall light, replace hall light switch | $3,500.00 | ||
| [6.] Replace valve in kitchen faucet | $107.00 | ||
| [7.] Snow removal at $75 per visit | $2,700.00 | ||
| [8.] Furnace filter changes at $75 per visit | $375.00 | ||
| [9.] Leaf removal at $150.00 per visit | $450.00 | ||
| [10.] Drain cleaning at $200 per visit | $3,000.00 |
(Def.'s Exs. D1–D10, Aug. 27, 2015 Bench Trial.)
{¶ 7} Cahill testified after Owens. He explained that he is a truck driver who lives in North Carolina and rents the property at issue in his capacity as attorney-in-fact for his mother. Cahill testified that Owens was property manager from November 2012 to March 2014. Cahill testified that, according to his understanding, Owens' responsibilities as property manager were to inspect the property, and if something was wrong, to notify Cahill. He claimed that he hired Owens to evict the tenants and look after the property. He testified that he never gave Owens authority to enter into a lease on his behalf with the tenants, and he never agreed to pay for, or authorized Owens to perform any of the services Owens provided during his term as property manager. Owens' compensation, according to Cahill, was to be 7 percent of rent. Cahill did acknowledge that he paid Owens for the stoop repairs and the window repair. However, of the $4,000.68 collected by Owens in credit card payments, $2,000.00, said Cahill, were unauthorized charges and the window work was never completed. Cahill testified the house drains were in good shape and that the tenants were provided with a new lawn mower; thus, there was no reason that he would have paid Owens for services like mowing the lawn or snaking drains.
{¶ 8} Cahill admitted that he did not see or check on the property from July 1, 2012, until June 15, 2015, the latter date being nine months after he filed the complaint against Owens that initiated this action. Under questioning from the trial judge, Cahill elaborated that he, in fact, thought the house was vacant beginning on or about the 15th of October 2012, when Owens first left the eviction notice on the door; Cahill did not learn the property was occupied until he had a security system installed on the premises and it sounded an alarm near the end of October or November 2013.
{¶ 9} The final witness who testified at trial was Douglas Carter, a tenant of the premises from July 2012 to June 2014. Carter testified that he helped Cahill renovate the house and moved in with his family on July 1, 2012. Before Owens became involved in managing the property, according to Carter, the relationship with Cahill as a landlord was very confused, and Carter had trouble getting Cahill to acknowledge when payments had been made or to agree on a system by which payments would be made. Carter testified that during the time in which Owens managed the property, he saw Owens probably twice a month or more often, that Owens promptly took care of any issues that arose on the property, and that Owens collected rent and always gave him a receipt. Carter testified that there was a lawn mower in a shed but that it was not new and did not work. He also explained that the shed was full of Cahill's stuff, and that Cahill promised he would clean it out so that Carter could use it for his own property care implements, but Cahill never did. Carter also testified that the sewer drain for the house was a repetitive problem. It back-flowed often and filled the basement with sewage containing human excrement and resulting in Carter having to discard items stored there such as clothing and Christmas presents. Carter testified that he had contacted Owens and the State of Ohio in an attempt to deal with the ongoing problem.
{¶ 10} Carter admitted that Cahill ultimately evicted him from the house and that, as part of an eviction proceeding, he agreed to pay Cahill $1,900 (which he had not paid as of the date of trial). Carter said, however, that he felt he was evicted even though he had the money at the time, because Cahill wanted Carter and his family out of the house so Cahill could sell the property.
{¶ 11} On September 10, 2015, the trial court issued a written decision dismissing all of Cahill's claims against Owens and C & O except that it required Owens to refund $1000 plus interest to Cahill as a result of having accepted money for repairing a window which, by his own admission, Owens never repaired.
{¶ 12} Cahill now appeals.
{¶ 13} Cahill assigns two errors for our review:
{¶ 14} Cahill first assigns error to the trial court's judgment on the grounds that there was a contract between him and Owens and that the trial court erred in concluding that the management agreement lacked sufficiently definite terms and a mutual understanding.
{¶ 15} On several occasions the Supreme Court of Ohio has set forth the requirements of an enforceable contract:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wildenthaler v. Galion Cmty. Hosp.
- Cooper v. City of W. Carrollton
-
Cahill v. Owens
...2016 Ohio 4972Edward Cahill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason Owens, et al., Defendants-Appellees.No. 15AP-925COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICTJuly 14, 2016 (M.C. No. 2014 CVF-30099)(REGULAR CALENDAR)DECISIONOn brief: The Fox Law Firm, LLC, and Justin M. Fox, for appellant. Arg......