may please the court i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal i will be limiting my presentation this morning to the following issues whether platers proved justifiable reliance into or resulting injury both of which are essential elements of their claims for fraud in the inducement in negligent misrepresentation second whether plane is recovery for fraud precludes recovery for negligent misrepresentation in third whether planers proved violations of the ohio deceptive trade practices in the pellets or not abandoning the other issues raised in their briefs but for those issues opponents rest on their br relied on statements the issues was whether they were justifiable in their reliance which statements are we talking about right now and you know the plate of soup refer to a whole series of conversations in documents exchange prior to the execution of this contradicts your honor the contracts and sellers have i no reliance provision and therefore any statement prior to the execution of th at the argument you're making now or are you digressing from your argument but i just want to know what statements are in your mind word issue these statements or representation is made regarding return on investment all of these are properties anything that occurred prior to the execution and management all of that if it was not incorporated within the expressed terms of the contract their reliance by executing a contract with the no reliance provision stating that we're not relying on anything not expressly set forth in this agreement is no longer a claim or a statement that they were justifiable in relying on given their representations to the contrary what if your client's agent assured each of the plaintiffs that they didn't need to look at the contract because it was some standard thing does that matter at all no it does not matter at all like that because each party has a duty to read the contract in their presumed they cannot ruefully be ignorant of the terms of the provisions in the contract and even if that representation were made number one these are standard contrary say or the contract used stupidly by my client so it's such a representation would not have been fraudulent but you have a duty to read the contract and be responsible for reading the contract the third either read the contract have it translated into a language that you're familiar with or investigate the terms of the contrary the specially w will face indication that you should consult with an attorney before executing the contract certainly does not allow you to circumvent the other expressed terms of that agreement no reliance provisions within the contract to preclude fraud in the inducement claim that's their purpose is to bring to the attention of the parties that if you had a representation that you wanted part of the contract then it's your duty to bring that in to the four corners of the document and have it set forth there in a second rate the plaintiffs fail to establish damages as required for both are fraudulent inducement negligent misrepresentation claims under ohio law the proper measure damages for fraud in the inducement claim dealing with realty is the difference of value of the property as represented versus the actual value at the time of sale record is devoid of evidence of what the actual value at the time of sale of any of these properties were i thought that at least for some if not most of the properties the defendant entities had flipped the property shortly before they had bought the property themselves shortly before the plaintiffs did here and if you had a very recent i guess market sale before he allegedly fraudulent sale why wouldn't that reese recent purchase be pretty good evidence of the market that because it doesn't tell you what a natural value is especially in this instance where you're then that same product is being sold later in the day at a higher price it doesn't mean that the sale to the later buyer is a fraudulent sale it just means somebody got a better deal than somebody else let's say you buy something on a tuesday in june and then somebody buys it on that thursday would not be pretty relevant evidence the market value of that item no because under ohio law to establish the market value of the item you must have either the expert testimony or an opinion expressed by the owner in this instance we had neither we had no expert pining as to what the actual market value of those properties were the actual value and the owners express no opinion as to what the value of this price says only that kind of evidence is enough to establish value i mean you know maybe in some cases you need that but what case would you point us to that says in every case you must have one of those two things the ohio case is dealing with real estate or the worthington the city school board of education versions franklin county board of revision one forty ohio state second to forty eight would be my principal authority the dot in that position and defy recall i think it's roughly paragraph thirty four that opinion your take give or take a read roughly in that of the value of the property by requiring expert testimony is outside the common knowledge of the person or the jury and really has invoked evidence rule seven o two in that analysis well how do you think testimony as to what they were from how much they were promised and how much they actually received if the jury was told that they were promised a ten percent return on the investment for the new frontally do some claim they took ten percent of the purchase price and awarded each of the plaintiffs that amount with the exception of mr brown because only one of his properties was discussed during the trial specifically and that property had a purchase price of ninety seven thousand five says one of those damages they needed to establish what the value was as represented and what the actual value was at the time you're making this argument relying on the fact that this is real estate potations damages and we argued that to the court below i believe we did a search to say that claim and what happens here is that the same set of underlying facts of the the same representations cannot be both and by awarding the images under both a fraud theory in the negligent misrepresentation theory what we have is two recoveries for the same laws which interpretation of limit when considering the deceptive trade practices act the provisions of the deceptive trade practices act however do not apply unless we're dealing with a product or service here we submit that we're dealing with real estate so that they're not applicable i mean they argue and i think they argue to the jury that they were defrauded as to services here so all that mean they did they didn't you why isn't that something that we should leave alone  because the services were not provided by the opponents the services they claim they were defrauded in dealt with the management of the property they just claim that whatever your client said about services whether they were going to be provided by you to a significant extent your see the my time is up it may have leave to answer your question it is a service is case in the stanton dealt with management services those management services provided by ip management an entity who the parties settle the plaintiff settled with before trying to related entity to all these ip and it is a related entity all controlled by mr rom as far as i know i the management company did that company have any direct dealings in forming this contract or were they simply the company that was supposed to be performing on the contract  cent i know my time's up mary responded they did have direct release in that they had a separate management contract with it management company and that management company conveyed information regarding the leasing of the properties the status of the properties many of the things the return on the properties because actions many of the things that the plaintiffs have complained of with regard to misrepresentations post sale if not all of them had to deal with the management company asking a different question did these people enter a contract with the management company pursuant to the same process that they entered into it with the defendant the process was that the agreement with the met a management company was referred to them was available to them they had the ability to either enter into a contract with their management company where it was some other entity at their choosing in this instance they entered into contracts with the management company for all but one of the properties of the advertising and the direct communication with the agent with those done on behalf of the management company no they said they indicated specifically that a third party management company was available plaintiff's exhibit four sixty four which was a large brochure that went to the plaintiffs talks about the process talks about a buying process that relates to the buying process that was explained in the other documents and that buying process included management and in fact with respect to management it is the it is the assignment to management these people didn't have a choice they were told as part of the process and they were then and you look at the internal documents which the brochure reflux talks about we will refer you we will give you a management property our plan is exhibit eighteen explicitly identifies that management prop company it's a happy management the only exception to that is with a close to home in columbus and if you look at plaintiff's exhibit twenty three they're one of their people there are an association there together this is not a situation where we're dealing only with the sale of property all of that all of the plaintiffs testify if we don't have management heck we're over in china we have to have somebody manage the property and the plaintiff's exhibit force which is that principle documents sent to the planners talk about forehands imam so management the services are exactly part of this process and that's by the way why with respect to the sept of trade practices that's the key here that's the service who prides it doesn't make any difference who got induced into this they got to the point got to do so because of a promise of property management if you're there's no property management there's only a three represent that they were going to provide the property managers who did well the question is who's they judge and that gets back to the question of what is this here this is assets on limit doing business as other people and trying to hide things if you look there was no such entity as investor income properties l l c and two thousand and thirteen there was an entity called them mormon which in two thousand and fourteen changed its name to investor income propert is assets unlimited trying to cut con people into believing there are all these other entities speaking of which asset some limited can't sell properties because it's not licensed in a while i p o high you couldn't sell property because it wasn't licensed in ohio and until may of two thousand and fourteen well after it began servicing these properties managers the management couldn't do it because it wasn't licensed and while that's all part of the fraud that's all part of the assets unlimited it's rock there's also mr haas who testified and when and mr haas will become the president of the company after this lawsuit was filed ran everything in there certainly was sufficient happens most importantly for a jury to i as i understand the response in your brief or at least part of it it's that your clients were assured by agent in china that this was some standard contract correct i it's the usually part of the case law it's been cited in both reach talks about the extensive factors to consider the jury was only given one ordinary care that's what was there everybody agreed to that instruction let's go back to what the let's take the english version of your marketing and let's make a chinese guy who also relied on this who can't grok all of the title company she relied on so that she could get informed consent we guarding the flaps so the jury had romney lying grackle relying on when they're both english speaking they're both american why is that unreasonable then for the chinese speaking people who can't read arguing the other side at say you know your honor if you're buying a house and you don't you can't read the language of the contract in the contract then you have an obligation to go get somebody who can translate it for you and that's why we have contracts binding precedent in this in this market and ohio case law talks about the several factors including age experience and other factors and the talks about it it had done a five certain factors and it says i'm up there among others so it's really open ended with respect to that it's a factual determination here it's not a legal determination mr krueger says yeah there was what is the question or answering with the fact that factual determination exactly what is there evidence upon property or more importantly the management as well because the discussion of the no reliance that's a general discussion more specifically to the numbers that the jury gave if you think about it if you look at the numbers what the jury said is we're going to penalize the defendants for fortunately getting us into this process while by deceptive advertising that ten percent of what the advertising said ten to twenty percent interestingly enough mr in his closing actually gave the jury three numbers he gave a number for each of the plaintiffs in two of the cases with respect to play the thank you they've jury actually rewarded a little bit less and they gave exactly what mr krueger sa with respect to plaintiff oh so you lied to me through these documents to get me out of the process and then you misrepresented to me after i agreed for example mr  negligent representation with respect to mr plaintiff it was we've got to tell us we have to ties so there's evidence there for the jury conclude that that's a separate act that's not the same act that's a separate act and they found different damages and that's where the knocking about the devil recovery now i'm not talking about the double recovery because the double recovery is i don't think is before you but with respect to the negligent misrepresentation i want to address an issue procedure and that is the question was asked wasn't raised before and it was raised in the reply brief in support of the motion for judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiffs had no chance to respond managed or before that actually you know in both cases before they started managing ok with respect to the market value the jury had there was evidence of their joining service twenty six through thirty two which y and it's at the same time than being sold to the to the plaintiffs i want to go on to another issue and that is going back to their how trade practices are the discussion about ip management being the  testimony i think it's a plane of hook i may be wrong on a plane but he said that ms who talked about specialized management i'm should be our special property manager so you can try to put him under a little bitty balls and high things with cops but it's the same cop  the matter is mr there are other evidence the jury can say wait a minute you have the contracts between ip ohio and so far and mr rahman sign those and those were duly translated so you had what you  terminations and if you frighten me into somebody signing a document the documents gone when you do stand to it just because you signed the document doesn't mean that you if you did then i can do i can push you over dressed i can hold your head and say sign this and you sign it and you waive everything and now you're stuck with it that's not the law in ohio that's not the law anywhere that i know when you look at the case law talks about there's no testimony that anybody did anybody tell these people to the buyers that there were things in the contract that weren't there well that there weren't things in the contract and she says just a standard contract signed now you may say to me david you're reasonably intelligent because you've been practicing law ok that's fine but that's a different facts situation that somebody who's investing harder learning she's forty one years old she got a child and she's in china and by the way if you look at their marketing stuff they talk about taking care of global investors people sign something it's sort of this common sense that you ought to understand what you're signing regardless of somebodies assurance judge if you were sitting in injury you may have said sorry that's not enough is there a case what case would use cite to support the proposition that you can sign something without reading it and just rely on the assurance of the other party and that's justifiable reliance the two cases that are cited the reason one is i think it's hurst is the last name it's cited in our brief there  responding there's a corresponding case bender that cited in the sauce and cited in the brief talk about more general principles but don't talk specifically about those issues so for those reasons we would ask that you will from the decision management agreement in any time and found that it was not a security because there was not a tie in this one certain stop service between the purchase of the property in the introduction of the management contract the tro judge specifically granted directed verdict on the securities claims citing that fit if they were not tied together mr coverts confuses the idea between a no reliance cla finding most of the case law dealing with no reliance clauses comes out to be the seventh circuit in illinois case law or florida and florida keys law that i've been able to ascertain mr coe much brought winners exhibit four sixty four and the reference to hands off management but as the court to look at it they had its record appendix record thirty three pages to twenty one in two twenty three were specifically references by a third party management company so they knew the players had every reason to know that the management was coming from and that he different from the selling i and unless she were the person making the representation and providing the service then you do not have a deceptive trade practices a claim it is no different than a trade a travel agent telling you that the cruises offers the best service of any cruise line on on the ocean you take a disney cruise and you find that their service is disappointing it isn't the travel agent to provide the service it was the cruise line