Zappitelli v. Miller
| Decision Date | 11 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-0540.,2006-0540. |
| Citation | 114 Ohio St.3d 102,868 N.E.2d 968,2007 Ohio 3251 |
| Parties | ZAPPITELLI et al., Appellees, v. MILLER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Heben & Associates and Edward J. Heben Jr., Cleveland, for appellant.
Dan Morell & Associates Co., L.P.A., Dan A. Morell Jr., Jason M. Panek, and Patricia A. Ekers, for appellee.
{¶ 1} In a civil trial, appellees, Nina and Anthony Zappitelli and Maria Capretta, won a jury award. On appeal, the court of appeals determined that appellees were entitled to additional compensatory damages for attorney fees and remanded the cause for a determination of those fees. We conclude that the court of appeals erred and reverse its decision.
{¶ 2} The jury awarded Zappitelli aggregate damages of $134,500 for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence. During deliberations, the jury had asked the court: "If we answer, no, to punitive damages, can we add money to compensatory damages to cover the attorney fees?" The trial court instructed the jury that they could not.
{¶ 3} On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court, stating that this court "has recognized the long-standing principle of law that attorney fees are recoverable as compensatory damages in a tort action for fraud." Zappitelli v. Miller, Cuyahoga App. No. 85895, 2006-Ohio-279, 2006 WL 178558, ¶ 57. To support this conclusion, the court of appeals quoted Roberts v. Mason (1859), 10 Ohio St. 278, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Zappitelli, 2006-Ohio-279, 2006 WL 178558 at ¶ 57. But these two paragraphs of syllabus law, when read together, support a conclusion opposite the one reached by the court of appeals.
{¶ 4} "1. In an action to recover damages for a tort which involves the ingredients of fraud, malice, or insult, a jury may go beyond the rule of mere compensation to the party aggrieved, and award exemplary or punitive damages * * *.
{¶ 5} Roberts, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 6} It is clear to us that paragraph one of the syllabus states that in an action for tort involving fraud, a jury may award punitive damages. It is equally clear that paragraph two of the syllabus states that when punitive damages are awarded, the award for compensatory damages may include attorney fees. We do not see how it is possible to reach a different conclusion. See Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 552, 558, 644 N.E.2d 397 (); Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 657, 590 N.E.2d 737 ()
{¶ 7} We accepted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charvat v. Nmp Llc
...attorney fees for his invasion-of-privacy claim depends on whether he is entitled to punitive damages. See Zappitelli v. Miller, 114 Ohio St.3d 102, 868 N.E.2d 968, 969 (2007) (“Without a finding of malice and the award of punitive damages, plaintiff cannot justify the award of attorney fee......
-
In re Wentland
...appropriate based on state common law under certain circumstances when plaintiffs successfully prove fraud, see Zappitelli v. Miller, 114 Ohio St.3d 102, 868 N.E.2d 968 (2007), Plaintiff failed to prove fraud in this case. Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which sets forth the......
-
Stuckey v. Online Res. Corp.
...“when punitive damages are awarded, the award for compensatory damages may include attorney fees.” Zappitelli v. Miller, 114 Ohio St.3d 102, 103, 2007 Ohio 3251, 868 N.E.2d 968 (Ohio 2007); see also Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552, 558, 1994 Ohio 461, 644 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 199......
-
Curran v. Vincent
...Ohio App.3d 164, 166, 4 OBR 264, 446 N.E.2d 1122. 18. Gates v. Toledo (1897), 57 Ohio St. 105, 111, 48 N.E. 500; see also Zappitelli v. Miller, 114 Ohio St.3d 102, 2007-Ohio-3251, 868 N.E.2d 19. State ex rel. Crockett v. Robinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 363, 369, 21 O.O.3d 228, 423 N.E.2d 109......