Fahncke v. Fahncke

• Decision Date: 10 February 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2-19-05,2-19-05
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 433,151 N.E.3d 1130
• Parties: Keith A. FAHNCKE, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Larry R. FAHNCKE, et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Hi Crop Achers, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

151 N.E.3d 1130

2020 Ohio 433

Keith A. FAHNCKE, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v. Larry R. FAHNCKE, et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,andHi Crop Achers, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

NO. 2-19-05

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Auglaize County.

Date of Decision: February 10, 2020

Lee R. Schroeder for Appellants/Cross-Appellees

Taryn A. Douglas for Appellees/Cross-Appellants

ZIMMERMAN, J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Keith A. Fahncke ("Keith"), appeals the May 29, 2019 judgment entry of the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint against defendant-appellees, Larry R. Fahncke ("Larry"), Robert J. Fahncke ("Robert"), Ronald E. Fahncke ("Ronald"), Lisa M. Merkle ("Lisa M."), Kathy K. Poppe ("Kathy") aka Kathy K. Williams, Amy S. Schlenker ("Amy") (collectively, "Keith's siblings"), Lisa A. Fahncke ("Lisa F."), Janye A. Fahncke ("Jayne"), Therese M. Fahncke ("Theresa"), Steven R. Merkle ("Steven"), Scot A. Poppe ("Scot"), David P. Schlenker ("David") (collectively, "defendants"). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

{¶2} This case stems from the estate plan of Richard C. Fahncke ("Richard") and Rosalyn M. Fahncke ("Rosalyn") (collectively, the "parents") who deeded four separate parcels of land containing 247 acres located in Auglaize County, (collectively, the "Fahncke-family farm"), to their seven children Keith, Larry, Robert, Ronald, Lisa M., Kathy, and Amy (collectively, the "Fahncke children") as tenants-in-common.¹ (Doc. No. 1, Exs. A, B, C); (Doc. No. 22, Ex. 2). Richard died on May 25, 2014, and Rosalyn died on March 15, 2018.² Rosalyn's interest in the farm (terminated upon her death) and vested the Fahncke children as tenants-in-common of the Fahncke-family farm.³

{¶3} At the core of this appeal is a written agreement between the parents and the Fahncke children dated September 27, 2003 wherein Keith was given an option to purchase the Fahncke-family farm which triggered after the parents' death. (Doc. No. 47). Such agreement, in its pertinent part provided as follows:

That at the death of the survivor of Richard C. Fahncke and of Rosalyn M. Fahncke, KEITH A. FAHNCKE shall have the right to purchase all of the real property subject to this agreement for an amount equal to the fair market value of said real property determined at the time of the death of the survivor of Richard C. Fahncke and of Rosalyn M. Fahncke by an independent appraiser hired by the remaining parties hereto. The appraiser shall appraise the real property at its agricultural use value unless said appraiser has knowledge that KEITH A. FAHNCKE will not use said real property for farming, in which case, the fair market value of the real property shall apply. For purpose of determining the purchase price of said real property, the appraised [sic] value of the real property shall first be reduced by twenty percent (20%) and the remaining balance shall be reduced further by one-seventh (1/7). The remaining number shall be the purchase price of said real estate and shall be binding on all parties herein.

(Id. ).

{¶4} Pertinent to this appeal, Keith and his siblings disagreed as to the valuation of the Fahncke-family farm after Rosalyn died. Based on that disagreement, Keith did not exercise his purchase option, which expired on September 21, 2018. Instead, Keith filed a complaint in the trial court against the defendants seeking a declaratory judgment, with further claims for breach of contract, anticipatory repudiation, and unjust enrichment. (Doc. No. 1). On October 22, 2018, the defendants filed their answer and counterclaims for declaratory judgment and partition. (Doc. No. 22).

{¶5} All parties filed summary judgment requests, and on May 29, 2018, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Keith, HAC, and Diane's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 26, 42, 47, 63). However, in its decision, the trial court granted Keith 30 days to exercise his option to purchase the Fahncke-family farm. (Id. ). (See also Doc. No. 66).

{¶6} Keith, HAC, and Diane filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 67). They raise six assignments of error for our review, which we will address together. The defendants filed a cross-appeal on July 8, 2019, and raise one assignment of error. (Doc. No. 77).

{¶7} We will address Keith, HAC, and Diane's assignments of error, first followed by the defendants' cross assignment of error.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. I

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because Reasonable Minds Cannot Come To One Conclusion Entitled The Appellees' To Judgement As A Matter Of Law.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. II

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because The Trial Court Failed To Apply The Special Meaning Of The Geographic Location And The Industry To Correctly Construe The Terms Of The Contract.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. III

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because The Trial Court Failed To Give All Of The Provisions Of The Agreement Weight And Meaning During The Construction Of The Agreement.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. IV

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because The Trial Court Failed To Give Any Weight To Evidence Demonstrating That A Scriveners' Error Existed And Affected The Meaning Of The Agreement.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. V

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because The Trial Court Determined That "Agricultural Use Value" And "Fair Market Value" Had The Same Meaning.

Keith, HAC, and Diane's Assignment of Error No. VI

The Trial Court Erred In Denying The Appellants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Granting The Appellees' Motion For Summary Judgment Because The Trial Court Relied Upon Extrinsic Evidence Of An Unrelated Real Estate Purchase To Determine What Appellant Should Pay In The Instant Case.

{¶8} Before we review the merits of this case, we must address a threshold jurisdictional question. Although the parties did not raise the issue of whether the trial court's judgment entry is reviewable by this court as a final, appealable order, this is a jurisdictional question which we must raise sua sponte. In re Murray , 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 159-160, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), fn. 2. Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co. , 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186, 280 N.E.2d 922 (1972).

{¶9} We have appellate jurisdiction over "final appealable orders." Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 (B)(2). See Grieshop v. Hoyng , 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-06-27, 2007-Ohio-2861, 2007 WL 1663516, ¶ 15. If an order is not final and appealable, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Dunham v. Ervin , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-79, 2017-Ohio-7616, 2017 WL 4074581, ¶ 10, citing Prod. Credit Assn. v. Hedges , 87 Ohio App.3d 207, 210, 621 N.E.2d 1360 (4th Dist.1993), fn. 2. See Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540 N.E.2d 266 (1989). " ‘An order of a court is a final appealable order only if the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B), are met.’ " CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski , 139 Ohio St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984, 11 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler , 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 5.

When determining whether a judgment or order is final and appealable, an appellate court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine if the order is final within the requirements of R.C. 2505.02. Second, if the order satisfies R.C. 2505.02, the court must determine whether Civ.R. 54(B) applies and, if so, whether the order contains a certification that there is no just reason for delay.

Nnadi v. Nnadi , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-13, 2015-Ohio-3981, 2015 WL 5703273, ¶ 12, citing Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. at 21, 540 N.E.2d 266. R.C. 2505.02 defines a final order as follows:

(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following:

(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment;

(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment;

(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;

(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both of the following apply:

(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect to the provisional remedy.

(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action.

(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained as a class action;

(6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes to the Revised Code made by Am.Sub.S.B. 281 of the 124th general assembly * * *;

(7) An order in an appropriation proceeding that may be appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the Revised Code.

R.C. 2505.02(B).

{¶10} " Civ.R. 54(B) provides that ‘[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * * or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express...