Tillimon v. Tate, Court of Appeals No. L-19-1059
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. L-19-1290,Court of Appeals No. L-19-1059 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 4544 |
| Parties | Duane J. Tillimon Appellant v. Etta Tate Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Duane J. Tillimon, pro se.
Veronica L. Martinez, for appellee.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, Duane J. Tillimon appeals two judgments of the Toledo Municipal Court. In case No. L-19-1059, appellant alleges the trial court erred in granting appellee Ella Tate's motion for stay of execution of judgment. In case No. L-19-1290, appellant alleges the trial court erred in awarding appellee damages on her counterclaim for unjust enrichment. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} These appeals arise out of appellant's claim for forcible entry and detainer and monetary damages. While appellant's claim for monetary damages has already been resolved at trial and affirmed on appeal, resolution of the present appeals requires review of the entire scope of the litigation between the parties.
{¶ 3} Appellant is the owner of a single family residence located at 3802 House of Stuart Avenue in Toledo, Ohio. Appellee resided at the premises under a three-year lease agreement entered into by the parties on November 11, 2016. The lease agreement included two addendums including a purchase option for the premises and a contract for repairs. Under the terms of the contract for repairs, appellee would receive a credit on the purchase price of the property for completing certain repairs when she exercised her purchase option. The contract for repairs also stated that if appellee failed to exercise the option to purchase the property, all repairs made would inure to the benefit of appellant. In addition to the contract for repairs addendum, the general lease agreement required appellee to perform any maintenance which cost less than $100 at her own expense. Appellee was also required to seek appellant's permission prior to performing any repairs which exceeded $100. In that instance, appellee was required to pay the first $100 of any approved repair.
{¶ 4} On August 11, 2017, appellant filed a two count complaint against appellee seeking to evict her from the premises for violations of the lease agreement and to recover a monetary award for property damage and unpaid rent, utilities, and property taxes. The eviction claim was dismissed following appellee's confirmation at an August 25, 2017 hearing that she had vacated the property. The trial court granted appellee leave to file her response to the claim for money damages on or before September 22, 2017. Appellee failed to file her answer before the extended deadline. On September 25, 2017, appellee filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer. Appellant filed a motion for default judgment the same day.
{¶ 5} Appellant's motion for default judgment was set for hearing on November 14, 2017. On that day, the parties agreed to participate in mediation. The mediation was unsuccessful. On December 18, 2017, appellee filed a motion for leave to file her answer and counterclaim for unjust enrichment which the trial court granted. On January 24, 2018, appellant filed a motion to compel discovery arguing appellee failed to produce documents she intended to introduce at trial as requested. The trial court denied appellant's motion.
{¶ 6} The matter proceeded to a bench trial on August 14, 2018. There, appellant requested damages totaling $6,615.54. During appellee's testimony, she introduced documents showing repairs she had made to the property in support of her unjust enrichment claim. Appellant objected to the admission of documents arguing they had not been produced during discovery. The trial court advised appellant that it wouldaddress his concern in the final judgment entry and continued with the trial. In its October 11, 2018 judgment entry, the trial found appellant was entitled to $3,121.27 in damages. The trial court also overruled appellant's objection to the exhibits introduced by appellee. Based on those documents, the trial court found in favor of appellee on her counterclaim in the amount of $2,654 and offset the damages awarded to appellant by that amount. As a result, appellant was awarded damages in the amount of $473.27.1
{¶ 7} Appellant timely appealed the trial court's judgment and assigned as error the trial court's denial of his motion to compel discovery on appellee's counterclaim and the trial court's denial of the full amount of his requested damages. Tillimon v. Tate, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1237, 2019-Ohio-3022 ("Tillimon I"). We affirmed the trial court's award of damages but found appellant's assignment of error regarding the denial of his motion to compel well-taken. We remanded this matter for a new trial on appellee's counterclaim of unjust enrichment only and ordered that appellant was entitled to discovery of documents appellee intends to introduce at trial. Id. at ¶ 37.
{¶ 8} On January 15, 2019, during the pendency of his first appeal, appellant filed an affidavit of garnishment to aid in collection of the trial court's judgment. On February 8, 2019, appellee filed a motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of the appeal. The trial court granted appellee's motion on February 12, 2019.Appellant timely appealed the trial court's granting of appellee's motion to stay. The appeal of the trial court's granting appellee's motion to stay was assigned case No. L-19-1059 and is currently before this court in this consolidated matter.
{¶ 9} On remand following our decision in Tillimon I, appellant filed a motion to set a deadline for appellee to respond to discovery on July 29, 2019. The trial court denied appellant's motion three days later stating that appellee had sufficient time to conduct discovery prior to the trial scheduled for August 29, 2019. The trial court also noted that appellant could make arguments regarding any allegedly deficient production at trial.
{¶ 10} Appellant next filed a motion for summary judgment on August 23, 2019. In his motion, appellant argued that appellee's claims for unjust enrichment were barred because the agreement entered into by the parties established that all improvements to the premises would inure to appellant's benefit if the option to purchase was not exercised. In response, appellee filed a motion to strike appellant's motion. Appellee argued that because a trial date had been set, appellant was required to obtain leave before filing a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56. Appellant then filed a motion for leave to file summary judgment asking the trial court to consider his previously filed motion. On September 20, 2019, the trial court denied appellant's motion for leave to file summary judgment.
{¶ 11} After a continuance, the retrial on appellee's counterclaim took place on October 31, 2019. Immediately prior to trial, appellant orally requested the trial court reconsider his motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded with the trial.
{¶ 12} In support of her claim for unjust enrichment, appellee testified that upon signing the agreement between the parties, she agreed to perform certain repairs to the premises prior to her occupancy. According to the agreement, if appellee performed these repairs she would receive a credit on the purchase price of the home when she exercised her purchase option. Appellee produced receipts totaling $2,564.13 she alleges were spent on parts and labor necessary to make the required repairs. She also testified regarding why she believed the repairs were necessary for her to occupy the premises. On cross-examination, appellee conceded that she did not seek appellant's approval prior to making any of the repairs not identified in the contract for repairs.
{¶ 13} Appellant testified that he did not dispute that appellee had performed, or paid someone else to perform, all the repairs she identified during her testimony.2 He also testified that the repairs were not necessary to make the property habitable. Appellant acknowledged that just prior to appellee's eviction he sent a letter to appellee, dated August 3, 2017, noting that he had observed the new garage door, entry door, andscreen door appellee had installed. He did not request that she return the property to its original condition upon her eviction.
{¶ 14} On rebuttal, appellee testified that the garage door on the property at the time she moved in had an inoperable lock. On re-cross examination, appellee acknowledged that she never brought this issue to appellant's attention or requested he install a new lock.
{¶ 15} In his case-in-chief, appellant testified regarding the terms of the contract entered into by the parties. Appellant testified that the contract required appellee to seek approval for any improvements not specifically identified in the contract for repairs. He further testified that the contract for repairs stated that should appellee not exercise her option to purchase the property that all improvements would inure to his benefit. Appellant also testified that in his experience as a landlord that the repairs made did not improve the value of the house.
{¶ 16} After closing arguments, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On November 13, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of appellee as to her unjust enrichment counterclaim. The trial court held that appellee satisfied the elements of unjust enrichment and was entitled to damages in the amount of $2,564.13. Offsetting the previous award of damages in appellant's favor by this amount, the trial court awarded final judgment in favor of appellant in the amount of $557.14. Appellant timely appealed. That appeal was assigned case No. L-19-1290. On June 29, 2020, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial