Douglas Co. v. Gatts
| Decision Date | 30 December 1982 |
| Citation | 8 OBR 247,456 N.E.2d 841,8 Ohio App.3d 186 |
| Parties | , 8 O.B.R. 247 DOUGLAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. GATTS et al., Appellees. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
An oral agreement to release or discharge a mortgage is within the Statute of Frauds.
Luther P. Cochrane, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Joseph Giulitto, Ravenna, for appellees.
Appellees, Dewey and Mary Alice Gatts, sold a parcel of land in Ravenna to Owen and Patricia Lavelle, d.b.a. Ravenna Plaza Associates ("RPA"). The balance due on the purchase price, $175,000, was evidenced by a note and secured by a mortgage held by appellees. RPA sold the subject property to appellant, the Douglas Company. Before the sale, a meeting was held which was attended by, among others, appellant's president and appellee Dewey Gatts.
Appellant filed an action for a declaratory judgment against appellees alleging it bought the property from Owen and Patricia Lavelle as a result of an alleged agreement reached with appellee Dewey Gatts at the meeting both attended, along with others, prior to the Lavelle sale. Appellant alleged that at said meeting, it offered to compromise the existing mortgage for $100,000 and appellee Dewey Gatts agreed to accept the $100,000 and discharge the mortgage. Appellant further alleged it subsequently tendered the $100,000 to appellees, which tender was refused by them.
Appellees denied any such agreement. They also filed a counterclaim for the balance due on the note and for damages.
Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim and a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, holding that the discharge of a mortgage affects an estate or interest in land and is therefore subject to the Statute of Frauds and required to be in writing. The court also dismissed appellees' counterclaim.
Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court and has filed the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Gatts because the discharge release of Gatts' Mortgage was not within the Statute of Frauds and hence no writing was required."
The assigned error is without merit.
Civ.R. 56(C), in pertinent part, provides:
" * * * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * "
A mortgage is an interest in land. Campbell v. Sidwell (1899), 61 Ohio St. 179, 186, 55...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nancy C. Justice v. Servicing
...1153 (Ohio 2014) (quoting Ohio Rev. Code. § 1335.05). The statute of frauds applies to settlement agreements, see Douglas Co. v. Gatts, 456 N.E.2d 841, 842 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) ("We conclude that an oral agreement torelease or discharge a mortgage is within the Statute of Frauds."), and the......
- State v. Vaughn
-
Davis v. Meyers
...a mortgage is within the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing because a mortgage is an interest in the land. Douglas Co. v. Gatts, 8 Ohio App.3d 186 (11th Dist.1982). However, the facts in the case sub judice create a different result as that in Douglas Co. v. Gatts. {¶34} In Douglas Co......
-
Firstmerit Bank, N.A. v. Inks
...is an agreement for the transfer of real property and thus falls within the Statute of Frauds.” See also Douglas Co. v. Gatts, 8 Ohio App.3d 186, 187, 456 N.E.2d 841 (11th Dist.1982) (“an oral agreement to release or discharge a mortgage is within the Statute of Frauds”) . {¶ 25} Here, the ......