Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz

• Decision Date: 04 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-358,83-358
• Citation: 9 Ohio St.3d 12,457 N.E.2d 827,9 OBR 61
• Parties: , 9 O.B.R. 61 GEAUGA TRUCK & IMPLEMENT CO., Appellee, v. JUSKIEWICZ, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 12

9 Ohio St.3d 12

457 N.E.2d 827, 9 O.B.R. 61

GEAUGA TRUCK & IMPLEMENT CO., Appellee, v. JUSKIEWICZ, Appellant.

No. 83-358.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 4, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

A claim upon an account for repairs to correct defects on a vehicle sold is a compulsory counterclaim to a buyer's prior breach of warranty action where the seller's claim for repairs is complete and exists before the time the seller is required under Civ.R. 12(A)(1) and (B) to serve its answer and counterclaim on the buyer as plaintiff in the breach of warranty action.

On June 28, 1978, defendant-appellant herein, John L. Juskiewicz, purchased a 1978 reassembled Mack Tractor Truck from the plaintiff-appellee herein, Geauga Truck & Implement Company. On August 1, 1978, this truck had an engine failure. Juskiewicz claimed engine defects existed at the time of sale and requested Geauga Truck to make repairs to correct these defects.

On September 14, 1978, before the repairs were completed by Geauga Truck, Juskiewicz filed suit against Geauga Truck and others, alleging breach of warranty, express and implied, and other damages in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. The amended answer of Geauga Truck was filed on December 11, 1979. Final judgment was rendered in favor of Geauga Truck in that case on or about May 16, 1980.

On July 28, 1981, Geauga Truck, filed a complaint in the Chardon Municipal Court for the cost of the repairs to the truck in the sum of $8,556.27 against Juskiewicz. Attached to the complaint was an exhibit consisting of a customer order, i.e., a repair bill, dated September 23, 1978, charging Juskiewicz for $8,556.27 for the repairs on the truck. On August 17, 1981, defendant Juskiewicz filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint on the account for the repair work alleging that the claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata pursuant to Civ.R. 13(A) for failure to allege a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier Cuyahoga County case.

At the trial on the sole issue of res judicata barring plaintiff's claim, the trial court determined that the present suit in Chardon Municipal Court on an account for repairs was a subsequent transaction or occurrence to the earlier breach of warranty action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County and was therefore not barred as a compulsory counterclaim under Civ.R. 13(A). Judgment was thereupon rendered on the account in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $8,556.27, plus interest.

The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the Chardon Municipal Court.

This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

McCafferty & Perelman Co., L.P.A., Robert L. Steely, Cleveland, and Martin J. Sweeney, Independence, for appellant.

Petersen & Ibold Co., L.P.A., Jerry A. Petersen and Michael G. Ibold, Chardon, for appellee.

CLIFFORD F. BROWN, Justice.

The sole issue in this case is whether the claim on an account for repairs made by a seller of a vehicle is a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier breach of warranty action by the buyer against such seller where such repairs were made by the seller upon the buyer's request to correct the alleged defects.

This issue requires application of Civ.R. 13(A) which provides:

"Compulsory counterclaims. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon his claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 13."

Proper application of Civ.R. 13(A) requires a conclusion that plaintiff's complaint in this case on an account for repairs is a "transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim" in the buyer's earlier breach of warranty action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County and was at that time a "claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party" within the meaning of Civ.R. 13(A). The claim of plaintiff on an account for repairs was therefore a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier breach of warranty action and is barred in this case by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, we reverse.

It should be noted that the plaintiff's invoice for repairs charged to the defendant, attached to the...