Depompei v. Santabarbara

• Decision Date: 08 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 101163,101163
• Citation: 2015 Ohio 18
• Parties: JOHN DEPOMPEI PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. KATHLEEN SANTABARBARA, ETC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2015 Ohio 18

JOHN DEPOMPEI PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. KATHLEEN SANTABARBARA, ETC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

No. 101163

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

January 8, 2015

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case Nos. CV-12-796773 and CV-12-796774

BEFORE: McCormack, J., Jones, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Scott H. Ballou

51 Landings Way

Avon Lake, OH 44012

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Robert D. Anderle

Gary A. Ebert

Seeley, Savidge, Ebert & Gourash Co., L.P.A.

26600 Detroit Rd., 3d Floor

Cleveland, OH 44145

TIMOTHY J. McCORMACK, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kathleen Santabarbara, executor of the estates of Lambert ("Lambert") and Margaret DePompei ("Margaret"), appeals the judgment of the trial court for plaintiff-appellee, John DePompei ("John"), in an action alleging, alternatively, breach of an oral contract and/or unjust enrichment. On appeal, Santabarbara assigns seven errors for our review:

I. The trial court erred in finding that an oral contract existed when there was no credible evidence of the necessary elements of a contract under Ohio law, thus making the finding of an oral contract against the manifest weight of the evidence.

II. The trial court erred by finding that Margaret DePompei or her estate had been unjustly enriched where there is absolutely no evidence that she received any funds or benefit from the plaintiff or that she had any knowledge of the same, thus mak[ing] the finding against the manifest weight of the evidence.

III. Assuming arguendo that a claim of unjust enrichment existed against Margaret DePompei or her estate, then the trial court erred in finding the amount of such enrichment to be one hundred and twenty two thousand dollars ($122,000.00) when there was no credible evidence of that amount being provided to Margaret DePompei or her estate, thus making that finding against the manifest weight of the evidence.

IV. The trial court erred in failing to continue the trial when defendants had not been afforded complete discovery or the benefit thereof; the trial court erred in failing to continue the trial for one day so that additional important witnesses could be produced by defendants, thereby depriving them of their right to a fair trial; the totality of the same indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial court judge.

V. The trial court erred by failing to state its judgment with particularity against each defendant, thereby making its judgment unenforceable.

VI. The trial court erred by sustaining both a claim of unjust enrichment and an oral contract claim against the estate of John DePompei.

VII. The trial court erred by sustaining both a claim of unjust enrichment against the estate of Margaret DePompei and an oral contract claim against the estate of John DePompei.

Procedural History

{¶2} On December 3, 2012, John filed separate complaints against Lambert's estate and Margaret's estate, which the trial court consolidated. A bench trial was held on September 19, 2013. At trial, the court heard the testimony of the following: John DePompei; John's granddaughter, Drue Hoffman; John's son, Attilio DePompei; Lambert's son, Mark DePompei; Lambert's attorney, Mark Wagner; and the executor of both estates, Kathleen Santabarbara. After hearing the evidence presented at trial and considering the exhibits and briefs submitted by the parties, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of John DePompei, and against the estates of Lambert and Margaret DePompei, in the amount of $122,000.

{¶3} In its order, the trial court addressed each of the plaintiff-appellee's theories of recovery.¹ It found that the "words, deeds, acts, and silence of the parties" indicated that the parties had an oral contract that was breached. The trial court also found that the evidence demonstrated that the estates of Lambert and Margaret were both unjustly enriched, stating that John conferred a benefit on both Lambert and Margaret by loaning them money so that they may purchase a home. The court noted that, although the checks were written to Lambert, Margaret was the joint owner of the home, Margaret moved the real estate out of Lambert's estate through the Affidavit of Surviving Spouse when Lambert passed away, at the time the transfer was made, the executor of Lambert's estate had notice of John's claim, and there is evidence that the loan was for the benefit of both Lambert and Margaret. Therefore, the court concluded, "it would be unjust under the circumstances for the estates to retain that benefit without some form ofpayment because the overwhelming testimony is that [John] never intended the money as gifts" and the brothers were attempting to finalize loan details when Lambert and Margaret passed away.

Substantive Facts

{¶4} John DePompei is an elderly gentleman in his nineties who lives with his son, Attilio DePompei. Beginning in 2006, John's granddaughter, Drue Hoffman, began assisting John with his financial affairs, which included managing medical bills, financial and legal documents, estate planning, and general household matters.²

{¶5} It is undisputed that from September 2009 to June 2011, John issued six checks to Lambert ($5,000, $20,000, $15,000, $2,000, $20,000, and $60,000), totaling $122,000, which were endorsed and cashed by Lambert. John specifically testified that the check dated June 15, 2011, in the amount of $60,000 was a loan for the purchase of a home that Lambert and Margaret purchased in 2011. John repeatedly testified that the six disbursements were not gifts; rather, they were interest-free loans, and that Lambert had agreed to make payments on the loans. John stated that he expected to be paid back in full. He testified that he loaned Lambert the money in good faith because Lambert asked to borrow money "many times" because he was "out of work." John asserted that he trusted Lambert as a brother. According to John, Lambert agreed to make monthly payments. Lambert failed to make any payments to John.

{¶6} John further testified that he never signed a purported "gift letter" of $71,866.80 (identified as plaintiff's exhibit No. 14), dated July 18, 2011, and he never disbursed a check toLambert in that amount. John's granddaughter, Drue, also testified that the "gift letter" was never presented to John's attorney for his review. She said that she had not seen the letter until litigation had commenced. She further stated that the signature on the letter did not belong to her grandfather.

{¶7} Drue testified that John had a "substantial estate" that amounted to approximately $300,000 and included John's savings and an inheritance John received in 2009. She stated that in the course of helping her grandfather, she became aware that funds were being disbursed to John's brother, Lambert, between 2009 and 2011. She stated that she had several discussions with her grandfather about "everything being repaid," as well as discussions with her father, her aunts, and her uncles. She became concerned about the disbursements and advised John to seek the advice of an attorney and to document the payments to Lambert. Drue testified that she understood these payments to Lambert were loans to be used by Lambert and Margaret for the purchase of a home.

{¶8} Drue also testified that she repeatedly attempted to gather all of the family members to discuss the terms of the loan payments to no avail, stating that Lambert and his family refused to meet. She sought help from Debbie Testa, a financial planner, as an intermediary to discuss the loans with Lambert and Margaret. Testa had previously assisted John, Lambert, and Margaret in their financial matters. An email conversation between Drue and Testa (plaintiff's exhibit No. 8), dated June 22, 2011, demonstrated that the terms of a repayment structure were relayed to both Lambert and Margaret.

{¶9} Attilio DePompei, John's son, has lived with his father since 2006. Attilio testified that he was present on Memorial Day weekend in 2011 when his father John and his uncle Lambert discussed the possibility of Lambert purchasing a home. He testified that there was nodiscussion of a gift at that time. Attilio further testified that on June 13, 2011, he overheard a telephone conversation that John was having with Lambert during which John was speaking of loaning Lambert the funds for a down payment on a house. Finally, Attilio witnessed a conversation in August 2011 where John learned that Lambert had no intention of paying John back. Attilio stated that John hung up on Lambert and he became so distraught that he cried.

{¶10} Mark DePompei, Lambert's son, testified that, on behalf of his father, he corresponded with John's attorney, Greg Seeley, regarding the terms of the loan for the purchase of a house for Mark, Lambert, and Margaret. In an email dated June 24, 2011, he stated as follows:

My uncle, John DePompei, as you know, graciously offered us a loan from his Trust Fund to finance a home we wish to purchase in Lyndhurst, Ohio.

My father and I discussed with my uncle borrowing $130,000.00 from his Trust Fund.

The terms we talked about were an interest-free loan in the amount of $130,000.00 to be paid over 18 years at the rate of $602.00 per month (payment terms were renegotiated with my uncle on 6/21/11).

The loan is to be repaid directly to the Trust with my uncle's daughter Patricia (Pasqua) Little as the sole executor of said Trust.

My uncle was to contact you to draw up the papers which once complete would be forwarded to my father, my mother, and I to review with our attorney * * *.

(Plaintiff's exhibit No. 9.)

{¶11} Mark acknowledged that the funds disbursed by John were to be a loan for the benefit of Mark, Lambert, and Margaret, and he confirmed Margaret's participation in the loan discussions. He testified that he, Lambert, and Margaret planned to live in the house together and, while his parents...