Coldwell v. Moore, 15 CO 0024
Decision Date | 14 February 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. 15 CO 0024,15 CO 0024 |
Citation | 85 N.E.3d 262,2017 Ohio 526 |
Parties | David COLDWELL, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Matthew MOORE, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Attorney Alan D. Wenger, Attorney Matthew M. Ries, 26 Market Street, Suite 1200, P.O. Box 6077, Youngstown, Ohio 44501–1111, For Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Attorney Robert J. Karl, 41 South High Street, Suites 2800–3200, Columbus, Ohio 43215, For Defendants–Appellees.
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, David and Lisa Coldwell, appeal the judgment of the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court entered against them on their complaint seeking specific performance or damages for breach of contract against Defendants-appellees, Matthew and Lorelei Moore, Michael and Colleen Lester, Blaine and Mary Moore, and Lynette Moore Beeler.
{¶ 2} This case was previously before this court in Coldwell v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5323, 22 N.E.3d 1097 (" Coldwell I"). In Coldwell I, we set forth the facts:
{¶ 3} In Coldwell I, this court reversed the grant of summary judgment that rescinded the Purchase Agreement on the basis of mutual mistake. Id. at ¶ 45. We affirmed the trial court's judgment declaring that the Moores' mineral rights included oil and gas. Id. We remanded the case to the trial court to address what it identified in its May 20, 2013 decision as "other issues presented, including whether time was of the essence under the Purchase Agreement or whether the Moores were fraudulently induced to enter into the Purchase Agreement." Id.
{¶ 4} The trial court has now entered judgment finding that time was of the essence and, therefore, there was no enforceable contract. The trial court entered judgment against Coldwells on their complaint for specific performance or damages for breach of contract. The Coldwells filed a timely appeal. The trial court also concluded that the Moores were not fraudulently induced to sign the Purchase Agreement and entered judgment against the Moores with regard to this issue. The Moores have not filed an appeal.
{¶ 5} The Coldwells' first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE.
{¶ 6} The trial court concluded that time was of the essence, first, because the express language in the purchase agreement made time of the essence and, second, because the parties' actions and the circumstances surrounding their negotiations compelled the conclusion that time was of the essence.
{¶ 7} Generally, in contractual relationships, the time of performance is not of the essence. Brown v. Brown, 90 Ohio App.3d 781, 784, 630 N.E.2d 763 (11th Dist. 1993) ; Shelton v. Twin Twp., 2015-Ohio-1602, 30 N.E.3d 1047, ¶ 40. The parties to a contract, however, may make time of the essence either expressly or implicitly. According to the Shelton court, "Ohio courts are split as to whether and when ‘time is of the essence’ may be implied in a contract." Shelton at ¶ 40. The Shelton court explained that some courts have found that "time is of the essence" may be implied "whenever a definite date is fixed for compliance." Id. citing Lake Ridge Academy v. Carney, 9th Dist. No. 91CA005063, 1991 WL 215024, *4 (Oct. 16, 1991) and Calabrese v. Vukelic, 7th Dist. No. 94–L–37, 1995 WL 750140, *1 (Dec. 14, 1995), citing Domigan v. Domigan, 46 Ohio App. 542, 546, 189 N.E. 860 (5th Dist. 1933). Shelton explains that other courts hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shrock v. Mullet
...to be such unless the intent of the agreement plainly shows the contract is not effective unless the condition occurred. Coldwell v. Moore, 2017-Ohio-526, 85 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 31 (7th Dist.). See also Grigoryan v. MaxOut Sports, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-6982, 94 N.E.3d 1214, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.). The dete......
-
Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corp.
...construing provisions to be such unless the intent of the agreement is plainly to the contrary." Coldwell v. Moore , 85 N.E.3d 262, 272, 2017 WL 606420, at *8 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2017). The facts of this case contrast with those where Ohio courts have found an absence of acceptance base......
-
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Payne
... ... [15.] WHETHER DOCUMENTS THAT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC RELIED, UPON IN SUPPORT ... ...
-
Stalder v. Gatchell
... ... 20 MO 0010 Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Monroe April 15, 2022 ... Civil ... Appeal from the Court of Common ... effective unless the condition occurred. Coldwell" v ... Moore, 2017-Ohio-526, 85 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 31 (7th ... \xC2" ... ...