Mantia v. House
| Decision Date | 10 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 22265.,22265. |
| Citation | 178 Ohio App.3d 763,900 N.E.2d 641,2008 Ohio 5374 |
| Parties | MANTIA, Appellant, v. HOUSE, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Marc N. Greenberg, Kettering, for appellant.
Robert L. Mues, Dayton, for appellee.
{¶ 1} Larry Mantia appeals from a judgment of the Dayton Municipal Court, finding that he failed to sustain his burden of proof in establishing that three checks made payable to his granddaughter, Julie C. House, in the total amount of $9,302, were loans that House was obligated to repay. Larry claims that the trial court erred in failing to find that a contract existed based upon the language on the face of the checks indicating that they were loans. Because we find that the evidence established a contract, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} In early 1998, Larry and Ruth Mantia discovered and met their long-lost grandchild, the defendant, Julie House. After reuniting with Julie, the Mantias discovered that she was deeply in debt for credit-card charges. The Mantias, after discussing this with Julie and her husband, agreed to loan the Houses approximately $46,000 in late 1998. In order to secure this loan to House, the Mantias had both Julie and David House sign a promissory note, bearing interest at seven percent, and requiring payments of interest and principal of $704 per month until it was repaid. The Mantias also required David to obtain a life-insurance policy, payable to the Mantias, in the amount of $50,000, as further security for the indebtedness. And the Mantias gave the Houses an amortization schedule for the loan. At this time, David was employed, and Julie was enrolled in Wright State University School of Nursing. The $46,000 loan was repaid in full to the Mantias.
{¶ 3} During the same time period as the loan for the $46,000, Julie informed the Mantias that she was going to have to drop out of nursing school because of her financial situation. As a result of this conversation, Ruth wrote a check to Julie, on August 8, 2000, in the amount of $2,000. The face of the check, in the memo line, indicated "personal loan." On November 20, 1998, Ruth wrote another check to Julie, in the amount of $5,000, with a notation on the memo line of "loan." And, on August 22, 1999, Ruth wrote a check to Julie, in the amount of $2,302, with a notation on the memo line of "loan for Wright State." Julie acknowledged the receipt of the two checks totaling $4,302 for her tuition at Wright State, but claimed that those checks were gifts from the Mantias. She also claimed that the $5,000 check in November 1998 was a part of the $46,000 loan that has been repaid.
{¶ 4} After August 1999, the Mantias never made any demand upon Julie to make payments on the alleged loan of $9,302. Ruth died in May 2004. On October 1, 2006, Larry filed suit, seeking judgment against Julie in the amount of $9,302, plus seven percent interest from the dates of the checks. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court, determining that the $5,000 check in November 1998 was not a part of the $46,000 loan, found that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof and that there had been no meeting of the minds as to the necessary elements to establish an agreement to repay. The court specifically found that while Larry testified that he thought the interest rate should be seven percent as in the other loan, there was no evidence that there was any communication or agreement as to interest. The court also found that there was no evidence as to when repayment was to commence and at what intervals and amounts payments were to be made.
{¶ 5} Larry has filed this timely appeal, setting forth one assignment of error for our review.
{¶ 6} "The court erred by failing to find that a contract existed based on the acceptance of a check with language on its face whose plain meaning can only be that the money was intended to be a loan to the recipient."
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, Larry contends that the word "loan" on the memo line of a check is sufficient in and of itself to establish a contract to repay the amount of the check. Julie contends that the trial court was correct in finding that the evidence was insufficient to support Larry's claim, and she argues further that even if a contract were deemed to have existed, it is barred by the statute of frauds.
{¶ 8} "` " Minster Farmers Coop. Exchange Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 117 Ohio St.3d 459, 2008-Ohio-1259, 884 N.E.2d 1056, ¶ 28, quoting Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-2985, 770 N.E.2d 58, ¶ 16.
{¶ 9} In a contract that is not for goods, the essential terms are, generally, the parties to the contract and its subject matter. Nilavar v. Osborn (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 1, 13, 711 N.E.2d 726. Moreover, the terms of a contract are sufficiently certain if they "`provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.'" Mr. Mark Corp. v. Rush, Inc. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 167, 169, 11 OBR 259, 464 N.E.2d 586, quoting Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts (1981) 92, Section 33.
{¶ 10} In Regina Apts., Inc. v. Village Green, Inc. (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 345, 14 O.O.3d 301, 397 N.E.2d 420, cited by Julie, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held in a similar fact pattern that where a writing of the word "loan" on a check is unclear as to whether the amount payable constitutes a loan to the payee, and supplemental evidence would be required to complete the terms of whatever understanding the parties may have had, it is not a written contract within the meaning of R.C. 2305.06, so as to be governed by a 15-year period of limitation. However, that decision was rendered within the context of numerous intercompany loan transactions between the parties, which made it impossible to determine from the face of the check whether the loan was owed by the payee or was a repayment of a loan owed to the payee. There is no similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Bohl
... ... In a contract that is not for goods, the essential terms are, generally, the parties to the contract and its subject matter. Mantia v. House, 178 Ohio App.3d 763, 2008-Ohio-5374, 900 N.E.2d 641, 9 (2d Dist.2008). A person cannot be subject to a contractual obligation unless the ... ...
-
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Air Evac Ems, Inc.
... ... See Mantia v. House , 178 Ohio App.3d 763, 900 N.E.2d 641, 643 (2008) ("In a contract that is not for goods, the essential terms are, generally, the parties to ... ...
-
Depompei v. Santabarbara
... ... 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 ... See Mantia v. House , 178 Ohio App.3d 763, 2008-Ohio-5374, 900 N.E.2d 641, 12 (2d Dist.) (in a contract that is not for goods, essential elements of a contract ... ...
-
Artisan Mech.Al Inc v. Beiser
... ... See Mantia v. House, 178 Ohio App.3d 763, 2008-Ohio-5374, 9. {28} In support of its claim that the parties reached an enforceable, oral settlement agreement ... ...