Lucas v. Eclipse Cos.
| Docket Number | 23 MO 0007 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 4728 |
| Parties | DAVID M. LUCAS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ECLIPSE COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio Case No. 2020-428
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Remand. Atty. Joshua D Miller, Toriseva Law, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and
Atty Matthew P. Mullen, Atty. John P. Maxwell, Atty. Terry J Evans, Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths, & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., for Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Appellants, David and Barbara Lucas and Presutti Estates, LLC, appeal the February 2023 judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Eclipse Companies, LLC. Appellants raise five arguments on appeal.
{¶2} For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
{¶3} Appellants owned a private road in their neighborhood. Appellants entered an agreement with Appellee allowing it ingress and egress during the construction of a nearby project. In exchange, Appellee agreed to do certain work for Appellants.
{¶4} Appellants filed suit in July of 2020 in the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas. Their case was transferred to Monroe County in November of 2020.
{¶5} The complaint alleges David and Barbara Lucas are the sole members of Presutti Estates, LLC. In August of 2019, David Lucas on behalf of Presutti entered a property use agreement with Appellee authorizing it ingress and egress on Appellants' property to work on a local construction project. In exchange, Appellee was to move certain fill dirt and rough grade an area near a detached garage. The agreement did not include the exchange of money. (July 9, 2020 Complaint.)
{¶6} The contract states in its entirety:
In consideration for the above agreement there is no cost to Eclipse Co., LLC. This agreement is signed by David M. Lucas, who is identified next to his signature line as the "Property Owner." (Complaint Exhibit G.)
{¶7} Appellants further alleged Presutti owned the paved road that was being used for the project per the agreement. In August of 2019, David and Barbara Lucas were out of town when they were contacted by a neighbor, who advised them their road had been damaged by heavy equipment. Upon raising the issue with Eclipse, the foreman ensured them the road would be repaired. Eventually, Appellants were advised via this same foreman that their road would not be repaired and that they should have known the road would be damaged from the construction use. Appellants allegedly incurred $7,962.52 to patch and fill the road. However, they claim these repairs were temporary and the cost to restore the road to its like-new condition would be $69,500. Appellants claim they were not informed about the size of the construction vehicles that would be traversing the road or the tons of materials the vehicles would be carrying, and if they had been so informed, they would not have agreed to allow Appellee to use their newly refinished road. (July 9, 2020 Complaint.)
{¶8} Their complaint asserted five causes of action, including negligence, negligence per se, willful damage to property, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty.
{¶9} Following the exchange of discovery, Appellee moved for summary judgment. As grounds, Appellee first alleged that Appellants David and Barbara Lucas lacked standing to sue because the damage was caused to the road owned solely by Presutti Estates, LLC, not the Lucases. Second, Appellee claimed Appellants' tort claims, i.e., negligence, negligence per se, and willful damage to property, were barred as a matter of law since the claims arose from the parties' contract. Appellee also alleged Appellants were barred from pursuing an unjust enrichment claim because the parties' written contract governed. Fourth, Appellee urged the court to conclude that Appellants' cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of suitability fails as a matter of law since Ohio does not recognize such a claim. Finally, Appellee claimed that Appellants' causes of action likewise failed because they sought recovery of future damage to property they no longer own, and Appellants no longer have a duty to repair the road. (September 6, 2022 Motion.)
{¶10} Appellants opposed, and Appellees filed a reply in support of their motion. (January 3, 2023 Response & January 13, 2023.)
{¶11} Appellant David Lucas testified that he, his wife, and sister-in-law owned the property when the road was originally installed. He does not remember the precise year, but it was before 2013. The road was installed by an oil and gas company to reach an oil well. It was a hard road surface at the time. He described it as a hard surface, but gravel. Then in 2013, they built a home on the road. There are nine parcels in their development. They own one plus an outlot. Thereafter, he and his wife made improvements to the road. They paved the road with asphalt for their personal use from State Route 214 to his detached garage, where he stored his collection of classic cars and motorcycles. They paid about $60,000 for the paving in 2018.
{¶12} Their road very recently became a township road. David agreed that any future repairs to the road were the responsibility of the township, and he had no say in them nor will he be obligated to pay for the repairs or upkeep of the road, now known as Veto Road. Before the township would agree and take ownership of the road, they had to finish the cul-de-sac and they incurred some engineering fees and a recorder fee. (David Lucas Depo. 1-24.)
{¶13} Regarding the contract here, David was approached by a representative of Eclipse, who informed him the company wanted to buy fill dirt from a vacant lot. The lot was owned by another individual who agreed and sold Eclipse dirt. David had Eclipse place some fill dirt near his detached garage, but he said it fell away that winter. (David Lucas Depo. 24-31.)
{¶14} When asked about the agreement to use his road, David said "I gave them permission to use the road, but I did not give them permission to tear up the road." (David Lucas Depo. 32.) He agreed he signed the written agreement, but he never got a signed copy from Eclipse. He signed it on behalf of his company Presutti Estates. He said no one told him about the type of equipment that was going to be used on the road or that damage may occur. He said there were no conversations about these issues before he agreed and signed the contract. In exchange for the use of the road, David said he received the fill dirt around his garage. He was not paid money. He said the fill dirt was from the neighbor's lot, which they got for free and moved it to David's lot. (David Lucas Depo. 32-38.)
{¶15} Sometime later, while he and his wife were out of the state, he was contacted by a neighbor who was complaining about the damage Eclipse caused to the road. The neighbor said the road was damaged to the point where his son could not drive his car on it. They sent David photographs of the damage. He was told there were three large dump trucks working around the clock and using the road. (David Lucas Depo. 38.)
{¶16} In response, David called his Eclipse contact Ralph to get the road repaired. According to David, Eclipse temporarily fixed the road when he was still out of town by adding "junk fill" and leveling it so the residents could use it. This made the road passable at the time. David said they had several conversations by phone, and Ralph indicated he would talk with the Eclipse owner to fix the road. When the project was nearing completion, Ralph told David his boss had told him they were not going to fix the road. He also said David "should have known that they would tear up the road." That was the last time David spoke with an Eclipse representative. (David Lucas Depo. 40-42.)
{¶17} David explained how the "whole roadway continued breaking up because the roadway was cracked where they constantly drove out to the main road." He hired a company to patch it, but a portion was unfixable. He said the road was "totally destroyed" in areas. David said he and his son also personally used their time and labor to attempt to remedy the damage. They put gravel down and spread it. He purchased gravel twice and used some he already owned. He paid a paving company $5,500 in December of 2019. He had Pike's Paving patch the road with asphalt two to three times. Part of the road had to be turned into a gravel road because the damage was so bad. They never had the whole roadway resurfaced before the township took ownership of the road. (David...
To continue reading
Request your trial