Wilson v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 12 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 102585.,102585.
• Citation: 49 N.E.3d 826
• Parties: James A. WILSON, Plaintiff–Appellant v. William LAWRENCE, Executor, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

49 N.E.3d 826

James A. WILSON, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
William LAWRENCE, Executor, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 102585.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Nov. 12, 2015.

49 N.E.3d 827

Joseph J. Triscaro, Demarco & Triscaro, Ltd., Solon, OH, for appellant.

Matthew T. Wholey, James A. Goldsmith, Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Cleveland, OH, for appellees.

Before: KEOUGH, P.J., BOYLE, J., and LASTER MAYS, J.

Opinion

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, James A. Wilson (“Wilson”), appeals the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, William Lawrence, Executor for the Estate of Joseph T. Gorman. Wilson also appeals the trial court's decision denying his motion for summary judgment against the estate. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

{¶ 2} In September 2011, Wilson and Gorman entered into a contract where Gorman agreed to purchase a 15 percent interest in Marine 1, L.L.C. for $300,000. The contract provided for payment in two phases: an initial payment of $100,000 at or near the time of the closing and quarterly payments of $50,000 for two years thereafter. Thus, the full purchase price was due on September 2, 2012. The first $100,000 was paid in full. Gorman did not make quarterly payments as specified in the contract, but sent monthly installments instead, with the last payment made on December 27, 2012. A total of $113,000 was paid by Gorman under the contract prior to his death on January 20, 2013. A balance of $187,000 plus interest remained unpaid.

{¶ 3} In November 2013, Wilson filed a breach of contract action against Lawrence, as executor of Gorman's estate, and Moxahela Enterprises, L.L.C. for monies due from Gorman on the unpaid contract.¹ Lawrence moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), contending that the complaint was time-barred under R.C. 2117.06(B) and (C). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that statute of limitation challenges usually involve factual determinations; thus, outside the reach of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review.

{¶ 4} Following discovery, Lawrence moved for summary judgment again arguing that Wilson's complaint was time-barred under R.C. 2117.06. Wilson opposed the motion, advocating that his claim was presented to the executor of the estate within the six-month time frame as required by R.C. 2117.06. Wilson also filed a cross motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.

{¶ 5} In January 2015, the trial court granted Lawrence's motion for summary judgment. In its written decision, the court stated,

[Plaintiff] brings his action against the executor of an estate. The undisputed evidence is that [plaintiff] did not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2117.06 for presenting claims against an estate within the applicable time period. Specifically,

49 N.E.3d 828

plaintiff's 7/11/13 letter giving notice of his claim against the decedent and his estate which letter was addressed and delivered to two individuals who were not in fact personal representatives of the decedent's estate was not legally sufficient as a matter of law under R.C. 2117.06. The letter does not factually or legally amount to notice of a claim to the executor in writing. Upon the undisputed material evidence, although that evidence is construed most strongly in favor of [plaintiff], a reasonable trier of fact could come to but one conclusion. Judgment is entered in favor of [defendant] Lawrence and against [plaintiff] as a matter of law upon all claims of [plaintiff's] complaint.

{¶ 6} Within this same ruling, the trial court denied Wilson's cross motion for summary judgment “since the undisputed evidence in the record shows [plaintiff] is not entitled to judgment in his favor.”

{¶ 7} It is from these rulings that Wilson appeals, raising two assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, Wilson challenges the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Lawrence. In his second assignment of error, Wilson challenges the trial court's decision denying his motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 8} An appellate court reviews a decision granting summary judgment on a de novo basis. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Summary judgment is properly granted when (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Civ.R. 56(C) ; State ex rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 77 Ohio St.3d 190, 191, 672 N.E.2d 654 (1996). Once a moving party satisfies its burden of supporting its motion for summary judgment with sufficient and acceptable evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts, demonstrating that a “genuine triable issue” exists to be litigated for trial. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449, 663 N.E.2d 639 (1996).

{¶ 9} Lawrence moved for summary judgment contending that Wilson did not comply with R.C. 2117.06 ; thus, his claim against the estate is forever barred.

{¶ 10} R.C. 2117.06 provides, in relevant part,

A) All creditors having claims against an estate, including claims arising out of contract, out of tort, on cognovit notes, or on judgments, whether due or not due, secured or unsecured, liquidated or unliquidated, shall present their claims in one of the following manners:

(1) After the appointment of an executor or administrator and prior to the filing of a final account or a certificate of termination, in one of the following manners:

(a) To the executor or administrator in a writing * * *.

{¶ 11} In this case, Gorman passed away on January 20, 2013. According to R.C. 2117.06, Wilson had six months to present his claim against Gorman's estate or by July 20, 2013. Lawrence was appointed as executor of Gorman's estate on July 1, 2013, which was prior to Wilson sending any formal writing making a claim against the estate. Therefore, Wilson needed to comply with R.C. 2117.06(A)(1) in presenting his claim.

{¶ 12} On July 11, 2013, Wilson sent a letter addressed to both Randall S. Myeroff, Trustee, and Pat Clark. Myeroff was an accountant with Cohen and Company

49 N.E.3d 829

that handled Gorman's account during the time Gorman and Wilson entered into the contract at issue. He was also the Successor Trustee for Gorman's Revocable Trust. Clark was Gorman's executive assistant who Wilson communicated with about payment under the contract. While the letter was addressed to both Myeroff and Clark, the salutation of the letter was directed to “[t]o the heirs, administrators or executors of the Estate of; and the trustees or beneficiaries of the trust of; or any other creditors or interested persons in the proceeds of the Trust and/or Estate of Joseph T. Gorman, deceased * * *.”

{¶ 13} Myeroff and Clark each testified at deposition that they received the letter. Myeroff testified that he received the letter on July 12, 2013, and forwarded the letter to Lawrence and the attorney for the estate, James A. Goldsmith “at or about the same time [he] received it * * * probably within a week.” (Deposition Randall Myeroff, p. 10–11.) Clark testified that she forwarded the letter on to Attorney Goldsmith “on the day [she] received it.” (Deposition Patricia Clark, p. 34.)

{¶ 14} In a letter dated September 24, 2013, to Wilson's attorney, Attorney Goldsmith rejected the claim Wilson made against the Gorman's Estate because “it was not presented to the Executor of the...