Vandercar, LLC v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth.
Docket Number | S. C-210643,C-210665,C-220130 |
Decision Date | 09 September 2022 |
Citation | 196 N.E.3d 878 |
Parties | VANDERCAR, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. The PORT OF GREATER CINCINNATI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, W. Stuart Dornette, Russell S. Sayre and Beth A. Bryan, Cincinnati, for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, Mitchell G. Blair, Matthew A. Chiricosta, Cleveland and David T. Bules, Cincinnati, for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
{¶1} The deterioration of the Millennium Hotel in downtown Cincinnati had long been an obstacle to the city's efforts to attract convention business. In 2019, Vandercar, LLC, entered into a $36 million purchase contract with the hotel's former owners in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the hotel "as a four-star (or better) convention center hotel." Several months later, Vandercar assigned its interest in the contract to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority ("the Port") in exchange for two potential fees totaling $7.5 million. The Port acquired the hotel property and paid Vandercar one of its potential fees, in the amount of $2.5 million. However, although demolition on the Millennium Hotel was completed in 2022, the dust has not yet settled on the parties’ dispute over the Port's obligation to pay Vandercar the second fee of $5 million.
{¶2} Vandercar sued the Port for breach of contract and bad faith, claiming it was owed additional fees when the Port issued revenue bonds that included funds for demolition of the hotel and other activities that Vandercar claimed were for redevelopment. The trial court granted summary judgment in Vandercar's favor on its breach-of-contract claim in the amount of $5 million, but denied its motion for prejudgment interest. The court granted the Port's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on Vandercar's bad-faith claim. Both parties have appealed.
{¶3} Because we find that the contract is clear and unambiguous in requiring the Port to pay Vandercar its $5 million fee, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Vandercar on its breach-of-contract claim. And because prejudgment interest cannot be assessed against the Port as an arm of the state in the absence of statutory or contractual authority, we affirm the trial court's denial of Vandercar's motion for prejudgment interest. Finally, because Vandercar's bad-faith claim was subsumed in its breach-of-contract claim, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed the bad-faith claim as a separate, stand-alone cause of action. However, because we find that Vandercar has alleged that the Port acted in bad faith, we reverse the trial court's granting of judgment on the pleadings as to the recovery of attorney fees and remand for further proceedings.
{¶4} On July 1, 2019, Vandercar entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("the Purchase Contract") with Cincinnati S.I. Co., the owner of the Millennium Hotel, to purchase the property for $36 million. The Purchase Contract was amended on August 27, 2019, and on September 13, 2019.
{¶5} On October 4, 2019, Vandercar assigned its rights under the Purchase Contract to the Port in an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, and the parties entered into an Agreement Regarding Assignment ("the Agreement"). The Agreement provided:
{¶6} After setting forth certain obligations of the parties, the Agreement provided for certain payments to Vandercar. One of these was to occur upon the closing of the property ("Development Fee"), and another was to be paid upon the issuance of Redevelopment Bonds ("Redevelopment Fee"). Specifically, the Agreement provided in relevant part:
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶7} On January 15, 2020, the Port adopted Resolution No. 2020-04 ("the January Resolution"), authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds. The January Resolution provided:
{¶8} The January Resolution then authorized the issuance of the bonds. In it, the Port agreed to use the bond proceeds to pay a portion of the Project's costs. The Project is defined in the January Resolution as acquisition, demolition, and evaluation of the site.
{¶9} Specifically, the January Resolution provided:
The Port will use the proceeds of the Bonds to pay a portion of the costs of the Project and pay or reimburse related costs, to pay certain costs of issuance of the Bonds, to make the capitalized interest deposit, if any, and to fund a debt service fund if required by the Original Purchaser.
{¶10} On February 12, 2020, the Port adopted Resolution No. 2020-11 ("the February Resolution"...
To continue reading
Request your trial