Watershed Mgmt., LLC v. Neff
| Decision Date | 08 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10CA42 |
| Citation | 2012 Ohio 1020 |
| Parties | WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, LLC Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN NEFF, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
Richard T. Ricketts, Ricketts Co., LPA, Pickerington, Ohio, for Appellant.
Michael N. Beekhuizen, Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
{¶1} Appellant John Neff appeals the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to Appellee Watershed Management, LLC, the trial court's denial of a motion to intervene, and the imposition of attorney fees and costs. Neff argues 1) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remained; 2) the trial court erred in not finding that res judicata applied to certain issues; 3) the trial court erred in denying a third party's motion to intervene; 4) the trial court erred in finding Appellant acted in bad faith and awarding attorney fees for such; 5) the trial court erred in awarding attorney feeswithout requiring evidence they were reasonable and necessary; 6) the trial court erred in calculating costs, which included deposition and transcript costs; and 7) the trial court erred in granting a motion for a final judgment without giving the adverse party an opportunity to respond.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Appellee's breach of contract claim, and in issuing its final judgment entry without affording Appellant an opportunity to be heard on the matter. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.
{¶3} In 2005, Pickaway County completed the construction of a ditch near Caldwell Road. The purpose of the ditch was to divert water from the roadbed and prevent its softening. According to Douglas Kohli ("Kohli"), a district technician for the Pickaway County Soil & Water Conservation District ("SWCD"), the Caldwell Road project did not break watershed, or change the ultimate destination of the water. The ditch merely diverted water from the roadbed and directed it to its natural outlet, albeit via a faster route.
{¶4} However, Appellant John Neff ("Neff") believed otherwise. Neff maintained that the ditch diverted water onto his land, creating drainage and erosion problems. Neff voiced his concern and displeasure to the PickawayCounty commissioners. In response, the commissioners consulted Kohli for a possible solution. Kohli suggested that Neff and surrounding landowners install grass waterways, which were grass-covered parabolic channels. Kohli explained the Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") and the Farm Service Agency ("FSA") administered programs that could reimburse landowners for up to 90% of the cost of constructing these waterways. The landowners would have to agree to maintain the waterways for a certain number of years, and the government, in addition to reimbursing most of the construction costs, would pay rental fees to the landowners as compensation for the tillable acreage the waterways replaced.
{¶5} Subsequently, Mark Ruff ("Ruff"), who farmed Neff's land; Carl Hamman ("Hamman"), who was the owner and sole member of Appellee Watershed Management, LLC ("Watershed"); and Neff met. Ruff had organized the meeting to suggest Neff select Watershed as the contractor to construct the waterways. Ruff had worked with Watershed in the past and was familiar with the process, so he again outlined the process for constructing the waterways, obtaining reimbursement, and paying the contractor. Kohli would design the waterways and Watershed would construct them. Watershed would only charge Neff the amount that the government would reimburse him - 90% of the estimated cost - plus additional fees for any extra materials or work that was required.
{¶6} Neff agreed to this arrangement, though he did not sign a written contract. Neff selected to upgrade the clay drainage tile for a portion of the project, which meant that he would owe Watershed $1,900 above the amount the government would reimburse him for the waterways.
{¶7} With all of the landowners agreeing to the waterways project, Kohli actually designed the waterways and Watershed began construction. During construction, Kohli noticed that a span of nearly 400 feet of the waterway could potentially break watershed. Breaking watershed would result in changes in peak water flow downstream, as well as increased erosion, which could subject the entities involved to litigation. Additionally, Kohli knew that the Pickaway County Engineer's policy was not to break watershed, so Kohli amended the plans to avoid breaking watershed. Kohli asked Watershed not to complete the remaining 400 feet as a waterway, but to have the waterway stop short of its originally intended termination point and blend it into the landscape instead.
{¶8} When the waterways were completed, Kohli examined them and certified they were constructed as designed and were working properly. Kohli forwarded his plans and certification to the NRCS, which agreed with his assessments and approved and forwarded the plans to the appropriate authorities.
{¶9} Prior to completion, Ruff sent a letter to each landowner, stating that they needed to meet with the SWCD to complete additional paperwork and if therewas a perceived problem with the waterway, they needed to address it immediately. Ruff then sent out letters to the landowners, including Neff, explaining that Watershed would be sending them bills for the work completed. Ruff explained that the bill was only to be used for submission to the FSA, but there would also be a second bill with a negotiated balance, the amount the landowner would have to pay. Neff never complained about the waterways to anyone involved, nor did he dispute the bill when Watershed presented it to him.
{¶10} To finalize the project and have the government reimburse him, Neff completed the final paperwork, wherein he certified that the waterways had been constructed as designed and requested reimbursement for his costs. The government ultimately approved Neff's request for reimbursement.
{¶11} Contrary to Kohli's certification that the waterways were working correctly, Neff believed that they were not. Despite Kohli's concern for breaking watershed, Neff believed that the waterways should have extended the additional 400 feet. Neff also stated that there was a lip, or ridge, along the edge of part of the waterways that prevented portions of his fields from draining. Having these complaints, Neff initially did not accept the government reimbursement checks, but finally acquiesced.
{¶12} Meanwhile, Watershed was at a loss as to why Neff had not paid his bill, since Kohli and the NCRS had certified that the waterways were workingproperly, Neff had certified that they were built correctly, and the government had approved Neff's reimbursement. Watershed also understood, as did Kohli, that the waterways were designed to address erosion, not drainage, so Neff's complaints were irrelevant. Thus, Watershed instituted litigation.
{¶13} During the dispute, Neff sold his land to STEW Farm, Ltd. ("STEW"). STEW moved to intervene, arguing it had claims against Watershed, as the new owner of the allegedly defective waterways. The trial court denied STEW's motion to intervene, finding that the dispute between Neff and Watershed concerned the contract to construct the waterways and STEW was unrelated to that transaction and had not demonstrated that it was entitled to intervene.
{¶14} Watershed then moved for summary judgment on its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Watershed also sought dismissal of Neff's counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of warranty because Neff had presented no evidence that he had suffered damages. Finally, Watershed asked that the trial court find Neff had withheld payment in bad faith, entitling Watershed to recover its attorney fees.
{¶15} Neff countered that many factual issues remained unresolved, but also moved for summary judgment against Watershed on its requests for attorney fees and pre-judgment interest.
{¶16} The trial court granted Watershed's motion for summary judgment. Watershed then moved the court to issue a final judgment entry, which could include compensatory damages for breach of contract, attorney fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs. Before Neff's time to respond had expired, the trial court granted Watershed's motion. Neff now appeals the trial court's rulings pertaining to summary judgment, the finding of bad faith, the imposition of attorney fees, and the denial of STEW's motion to intervene, and the calculation of costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sexton v. Certified Oil Co., Case No. 11CA3299
... ... 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) in order to be final and appealable." Watershed Management L.L.C. v. Neff, 4th Dist. No. 10CA42, 2012 Ohio 1020, 2012 WL 832829, 18; Noble v ... ...