Case Western Reserve University v. Friedman
| Decision Date | 21 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-053,11-053 |
| Citation | 33 Ohio App.3d 347,515 N.E.2d 1004 |
| Parties | , 43 Ed. Law Rep. 357 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Appellant, v. FRIEDMAN et al., Appellees. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A former property owner who mistakenly pays real estate taxes on property owned by another, due to a mistake of fact, is entitled to reimbursement from the new property owner.
Joel A. Makee and Sharon R. Barner, Cleveland, for appellant.
James J. Bartolozzi, Cleveland, for appellees.
On May 25, 1984, appellant, Case Western Reserve University, filed a complaint alleging that on January 21, 1981, it sold a parcel of real estate to appellees, Marvin and Harold W. Friedman. It further alleged that due to a clerical error, appellant, after the sale, mistakenly paid real estate taxes of $4,239.91 on the parcel of property. Appellant prayed for reimbursement of the $4,239.91. On January 15, 1985, appellees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 1, 1985, the court granted the motion.
Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court and has filed the following two assignments of error:
The first assignment of error is well-taken, but the second assignment of error is without merit.
Appellant first contends that the court erred in granting appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. We agree.
Civ.R. 12(C) provides:
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as a motion to dismiss filed after the pleadings are closed and raises only questions of law. The pleadings must be construed liberally and in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and every reasonable inference in favor of the party against whom the motion is made should be indulged. Vaught v. Vaught (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 264, 2 OBR 293, 441 N.E.2d 811; Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 63 O.O.2d 262, 297 N.E.2d 113. The motion should be denied if it cannot be determined from the face of the pleadings that the pleading does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Calhoun v. Supreme Court of Ohio (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 1, 15 O.O.3d 13, 399 N.E.2d 559.
The long-standing general rule in Ohio on voluntary payments is that a volunteer who makes payment, albeit mistakenly, on a legal obligation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids & Gatso United States, Inc.
...payment doctrine, but a mistake of law does not give rise to an unjust enrichment claim. See, e.g., Case W. Reserve Univ. v. Friedman, 515 N.E.2d 1004, 1005 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986); Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 727 N.W.2d 546, 553 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). In addition, the voluntary payment doctrin......
-
Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Firestone
...every reasonable inference in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. Id. , citing Case W. Res. Univ. v. Friedman , 33 Ohio App.3d 347, 515 N.E.2d 1004 (8th Dist.1986).In order to be entitled to a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(C), it must appear beyond doubt that [the nonmovant] can......
-
Slone v. Aerospace Design & Fabrication, Inc.
...use in ruling upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) was set forth in Case W. Res. Univ. v. Friedman (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 347, 348, 515 N.E.2d 1004, 1005: "A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as a motion to dismiss filed after the pleadings are......
-
Burnside v. Leimbach
...the party against whom the motion is made along with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Case Western Reserve Univ. v. Friedman (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 347, 348, 515 N.E.2d 1004, 1005; and Erie Cty. Bd. of Edn. v. Rhodes (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 35, 17 OBR 88, 477 N.E.2d 1171. The trial......