Court Opinion

ID: 9396102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 15:07:47.937138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.119412
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Thackston v. Zembower, 2023-Ohio-1690.]

            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                MAHONING COUNTY

                            CHARLES B. THACKSTON et al.,

                                      Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                                   v.

                              MICHAEL P. ZEMBOWER, JR.,

                                      Defendant-Appellee.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                       Case No. 21 MA 0112

                                   Civil Appeal from the
                      Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                  Case No. 2020 CV 1493

                                       BEFORE:
                Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                         JUDGMENT:
                      Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

Atty. James E. Lanzo, 4126 Youngstown Poland Rd., Youngstown, Ohio 44514 for
Plaintiffs-Appellants and

Atty. Christopher A. Maruca, The Maruca Law Firm, LLC, 201 East Commerce St., Ste.
316, Youngstown, Ohio 44503 for Defendant-Appellee.

                                       Dated: May 18, 2023
                                                                                       –2–

Robb, J.

       {¶1}   Appellants, Charles B. Thackston and Samantha Thackston, appeal the trial
court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Michael P. Zembower,
Jr.   Appellants argue the trial court erred by failing to consider unobjected to but
noncompliant summary judgment evidence and that genuine issues of material fact
remain. The trial court’s decision is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded.
                                       Statement of the Case
       {¶2}   In May of 2020, Appellants purchased a home from Appellee located in
Poland Ohio. After moving in, Appellants allegedly experienced flooding in the basement,
which was not disclosed on the residential property disclosure form.
       {¶3}   Appellants filed suit in September 2020. They claimed Appellee breached
the residential purchase agreement and made misrepresentations in the residential
property disclosure form. Appellants alleged the basement flooding led them to discover
“serious deterioration in the foundation” which was also not disclosed. Appellants claimed
the condition of the home was not in conformity with Appellee’s statements and
representations in the residential property disclosure form. They also alleged Appellee
affirmatively concealed existing water damage and the condition of the foundation. They
requested compensatory and punitive damages. (Complaint.)
       {¶4}   The purchase agreement is attached to Appellants’ complaint. It indicates
under section 11, “Residential Property Disclosure Form,” the “Buyer has reviewed and
signed copy, attached.” The corresponding boxes are initialed by “ST” and “CT.” Under
section 14, titled “Inspections,” the contract provides in part: “Buyer agrees to accept
property in its ‘AS IS’ condition excepting that the Buyer shall have 0 calendar days after
the date of written acceptance of the contract by both parties * * * to have an inspection *
* *.” Thereafter, the boxes are initialed by the buyers next to the words “Buyer declines
inspection”. (Complaint, Exhibit 1.)
       {¶5}   Exhibit 2, attached to Appellants’ complaint, is a copy of the residential
property disclosure form signed by Appellee on May 21, 2020 and Appellants on May 25,
2020. It contains no affirmative disclosures; each box is either marked “No” or “N/A” for
not applicable. (Complaint, Exhibit 2.)

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                         –3–

       {¶6}   The potentially applicable disclosures on Appellee’s residential property
disclosure form are section D and E, which provide: “D) WATER INTRUSION: Do you
know of any previous or current water leakage, water accumulation, excess moisture
or other defects to the property, including but not limited to any area below grade,
basement or crawl space?” (Emphasis sic.) The corresponding box is checked “No.”
The form then states: “If ‘Yes’, please describe and indicate any repairs completed * * *.”
The adjacent lines are blank. (Complaint, Exhibit 2.)
       {¶7}   The next disclosure question under Section D) WATER INTRUSION states:
“Do you know of any water or moisture related damage to floors, walls or ceilings as a
result of flooding, moisture seepage, moisture condensation; ice damming; sewer
overflow/backup; or leaking pipes, plumbing fixtures, or appliances?” The corresponding
box is checked “No.” Immediately thereafter, the form provides: “If yes, please describe
and indicate any repairs completed * * *.” The lines after this query are blank. (Complaint,
Exhibit 2.)
       {¶8}   Section E states:
              E)       STRUCTURAL             COMPONENTS             (FOUNDATION,
       BASEMENT/CRAWL SPACE, FLOORS, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
       WALLS): Do you know of any previous or current movement, shifting,
       deterioration, material cracks/settling (other than visible minor cracks or
       blemishes) or other material problems with the foundation, basement/crawl
       space, floors, or interior/exterior walls?
(Emphasis sic.) The corresponding box is marked “No.” And the corresponding lines that
advise the seller to “describe and indicate any repairs, alterations or modifications to
control the cause or effect of any problem identified (but not longer than 5 years)” is blank.
(Complaint, Exhibit 2.)
       {¶9}   The parties agreed to have the case decided by the magistrate pursuant to
Civ.R. 53(A)(C)(2). (January 28, 2021 Entry.) After the exchange of discovery, Appellee
moved for summary judgment in October of 2021. Appellee urged the court to find he
was entitled to summary judgment because Appellants purchased the home as is. The
only evidence offered in support was his affidavit, in which Appellee avers in part: “6. I
never knowingly lied on the disclosure form or with any disclosures or statements made

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                         –4–

at any time in the process of the sale. [And] 7. I never attempted to conceal any history
of water damage on the premises.” (October 4, 2021 Summary Judgment Motion,
Zembower Affidavit.)
       {¶10} Appellants opposed summary judgment and submitted the affidavit of
Appellant Samantha Thackston in support. It states in part: “4. If Defendant provided
accurate statements regarding the history of water intrusion at the residence, my husband
and I would have rescinded our previous agreement to purchase said property under R.C.
5302.30(K)(2).”
       {¶11} Attached to Samantha’s affidavit is what appears to be an estimate for
repairs to the residence secured by Appellee dated before the home was sold to
Appellants. This document seems to be an internal document from a waterproofing
company. It states in part that the owner “reported water in basement on heavy rains.” It
lists Appellee’s name and address as the owner. While the document appears to be
signed, it is not notarized or authenticated.     There is no corresponding affidavit or
testimony by an individual with personal knowledge attesting to its contents or creation.
(November 8, 2021, Response, Exhibit A.)
       {¶12} The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in Appellee’s favor.
The magistrate’s decision explained in detail why it did not consider Plaintiff’s exhibit A,
the estimate purportedly secured by Appellee:
              [T]he document itself appears to have been completed by an
       inspector and there is little, if any, legible reference to “Callow Basement
       Waterproof.” This Exhibit “A” submitted by Plaintiff * * * appears to be
       inadmissible hearsay that the Magistrate will not consider * * *.
              To the extent that the Exhibit contains statements of the Defendant,
       himself, the same would be admissible as the admission of a party opponent
       pursuant to Evid.R. 801(D)(2) which statements are not hearsay. However,
       neither the affidavit nor the Exhibit to which it refers bears any information,
       which would authenticate the document as the statement of the Defendant,
       and * * * the Affidavit of Samantha Thackston is unable to authenticate it as
       such. A qualified representative of “Callow Basement Waterproof” would

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                       –5–

       likely be possessed of sufficient personal knowledge to be competent to
       authenticate this document.
(November 29, 2021 Magistrate’s Decision.) After expressly holding it would not consider
this exhibit, the magistrate found no genuine issues of material fact existed for trial and
Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court entered judgment
consistent with the magistrate’s decision. Civ.R. 53(C)(2).
       {¶13} Appellants raise one assignment of error on appeal.
                           Assignment of Error: Summary Judgment
       {¶14} Appellants’ sole assignment of error contends:
       “The trial court erred in failing to consider the affidavit and attached documents of
the Plaintiffs-Appellants as even if the same were hearsay it went unobjected to and
should have been considered.”
       {¶15} Appellants’ assignment of error consists of two arguments. First, they
contend the trial court erred by not considering the waterproofing estimate attached to
Samantha’s affidavit because Appellee did not object.          Second, Appellants argue
because Appellee did not deny having knowledge of a prior water intrusion or failing to
disclose his knowledge on the residential property disclosure form, summary judgment
was not warranted because genuine issues of fact remain for trial. We agree in part.
       {¶16} Appellate courts review decisions awarding summary judgment de novo.
Northeast Ohio Apt. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 121 Ohio App.3d 188, 191,
699 N.E.2d 534 (8th Dist.1997). We review the trial court's decision independently and
without deference, pursuant to the standards in Civ.R. 56(C). Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of
Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153 (4th Dist.1993).
       {¶17} Summary judgment is appropriate when (1) no genuine issue as to any
material fact exists; (2) the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law; and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving
party, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party.
Holliman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 414, 415, 715 N.E.2d 532 (1999). The initial
burden is on the moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating that no issue of
material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 29-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). If the movant meets

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                           –6–

this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that a genuine issue of
material fact exists for trial. Id.
          {¶18} A “material fact” for summary judgment depends on the type of claim being
litigated. Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assocs., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598, 603, 662 N.E.2d
1088 (8th Dist.1995), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248, 106
S.Ct. 2505 (1986).
          {¶19} Appellants asserted claims for breach of contract and fraudulent
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.             To assert a successful breach of
contract claim, one must prove: “(1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance on the
part of appellant; (3) breach by appellees; and (4) damages.” Huffman v. Kazak Brothers,
11th Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-152 (Apr. 12, 2002), citing Doner v. Snapp, 98 Ohio App.3d
597, 600, 649 N.E.2d 42 (1994).
          To establish a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation or
          concealment, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a representation or, when a duty to
          disclose exists, concealment of a fact, (2) material to the transaction at
          hand, (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or with such utter
          disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge
          may be inferred, (4) with the intent to mislead another into relying upon it,
          (5) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and (6) a
          resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance. See Burr v. Stark Cty.
          Bd. of Commrs., 23 Ohio St.3d 69, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (1986), paragraph two
          of the syllabus.
Hubbard Family Tr. v. TNT Land Holdings, LLC, 2014-Ohio-772, 9 N.E.3d 411, ¶ 22 (4th
Dist.).
          {¶20} In his summary judgment motion, Appellee argued that even if he made a
misstatement on the residential property disclosure form, he is not liable to Appellants
because the sale was as is.
          The inclusion of an ‘as is’ clause relieves the seller of the duty to disclose
          any defects for an action of fraudulent nondisclosure against the seller and
          for breach of contract claims. Tutolo v. Young, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-
          118, 2012-Ohio-121, ¶ 51-52, citing Massa v. Genco, 11th Dist. Lake No.

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                    –7–

       89-L-14-162, 1991 WL 26761, *2 (Mar. 1, 1991). “The doctrine of caveat
       emptor precludes recovery in an action by the purchaser for a structural
       defect in real estate where (1) the condition complained of is open to
       observation or discoverable upon reasonable inspection, (2) the purchaser
       had the unimpeded opportunity to examine the premises, and (3) there is
       no fraud on the part of the vendor.”
Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 519 N.E.2d 642, syllabus (1988), citing Traverse v.
Long, 165 Ohio St. 249, 135 N.E.2d 256 (1956).
       {¶21} Thus, as Appellee contends and the trial court found, the parties’ inclusion
of the as-is clause in the purchase agreement precludes Appellants’ recovery for breach
of contract. Id. Consequently, summary judgment in Appellee’s favor was proper for this
cause of action. However, to the extent Appellants also asserted certain fraud-based
claims, summary judgment is not appropriate via the doctrine of caveat emptor. Id.;
Tutolo at ¶ 51, citing Brewer v. Brothers, 82 Ohio App.3d 148, 151, 611 N.E.2d 492 (12th
Dist.1992); Loya v. Howard Hanna Smyth, Cramer Co., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24378,
2009-Ohio-448, ¶ 13.
       {¶22} Three types of fraud claims may arise from real estate transactions:
fraudulent     misrepresentation,      fraudulent     concealment,    and     fraudulent
nondisclosure. Decaestecker v. Belluardo, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22218, 2008-Ohio-
2077, ¶ 37, citing Kaye v. Buehrle, 8 Ohio App.3d 381, 457 N.E.2d 373 (1983). Here,
Appellants assert claims for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation.
These claims are closely related and based on similar facts, but must be separately
addressed based on the distinct allegations and summary judgment evidence.
       {¶23} Appellants’ claim for fraudulent concealment contends Appellee took
“affirmative steps to conceal evidence of water intrusion at the residence” and that they
justifiably relied on the concealment to their detriment.
       {¶24} In his motion for summary judgment and affidavit, Appellee denies
“attempt[ing] to conceal any history of water damage on the premises.” (October 4, 2021
Summary Judgment Motion, Zembower Affidavit.) In response, Appellants did not come
forward with competing evidence tending to show that Appellee took affirmative steps to

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                            –8–

conceal water damage consistent with their fraudulent concealment claim, and as such,
summary judgment was proper in Appellee’s favor on this cause of action.
       {¶25} On the other hand, Appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim contends
they relied on Appellee’s statements made on his property disclosure form which
indicated he was not aware of prior water intrusions or flooding and not aware of material
problems regarding the foundation.          Appellants contend these misstatements or
nondisclosures were material to the transaction and they relied on them to their detriment.
They claim that had Appellee disclosed prior flooding and his knowledge about the
deterioration of the foundation, they would have sought to rescind the purchase
agreement. (Samantha Thackston Affidavit.)
       {¶26} Sellers of residential property are required to complete and deliver to
prospective purchasers a property disclosure form disclosing various “material matters
relating to the physical condition of the property” and “any material defects in the property
that are within the actual knowledge of the transferor.” R.C. 5302.30(C) & (D).
       {¶27} Appellants contend they would have sought to rescind the agreement had
Appellee truthfully disclosed the prior flooding and condition of the foundation. As they
allege, R.C. 5302.30(K) provides a buyer with a three-day right of rescission after
receiving the property disclosure form if it is received after executing the purchase
agreement.
       If a seller fails to disclose a material fact on a residential property disclosure
       form with the intention of misleading the buyer, and the buyer relies on the
       form, the seller is liable for any resulting injury. Wallington v. Hageman, 8th
       Dist. No. 94763, 2010-Ohio-6181, ¶ 18, citing Pedone v. Demarchi, 8th Dist.
       No. 88667, 2007-Ohio-6809, 2007 WL 4442660, ¶ 31. In other words, the
       “as is” clause is inapplicable if the property disclosure form contains
       misrepresentations. Wilfong v. Petrone, 9th Dist. No. 26317, 2013-Ohio-
       2434, 2013 WL 2718452, ¶ 32. When a buyer has had the opportunity to
       inspect the property, however, “he is charged with knowledge of the
       conditions that a reasonable inspection would have disclosed.” Wallington;
       Pedone at ¶ 33.

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                         –9–

Hubbard Family Tr. v. TNT Land Holdings, LLC, 2014-Ohio-772, 9 N.E.3d 411, ¶ 26 (4th
Dist.); Evon v. Walters, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020-G-0266, 2021-Ohio-3475, ¶ 17.
Accord Cadle v. Kehl, 9th Dist. No. 17CA011205, 2018-Ohio-5266, 127 N.E.3d 477, ¶ 14
(“even under circumstances where there is an ‘as is’ clause in a real estate contract, a
seller may pursue a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation for failure to disclose a known
material defect on the residential property disclosure form.”)
       {¶28} Here, Appellee does not deny in his affidavit that he failed to disclose
material facts regarding prior water intrusion or flooding at the home and/or knowledge of
foundation deterioration (despite the duty to disclose).         Conspicuously absent from
Appellee’s affidavit is a statement that he did not know about a history of water damage,
prior flooding, or intrusion. Instead, he states he “never knowingly lied on the disclosure
form.” His affidavit leaves open the issue of whether Appellee had knowledge of prior
water intrusion, flooding, and/or foundation deterioration when he executed the property
disclosure form. (October 4, 2021 Summary Judgment Motion, Zembower Affidavit.)
       {¶29} Further, assuming Appellee had prior knowledge of water intrusion and/or
foundation issues at the time he executed the property disclosure form, his affidavit fails
to explain why he did not disclose these facts. Although Appellee denies “knowingly
[lying] on the disclosure form,” this is not the applicable standard. Instead, to succeed on
a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, a plaintiff must show the statement was “made
falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to
whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred * * *.” (Emphasis added.) Davis
v. Montenery, 173 Ohio App.3d 740, 2007-Ohio-6221, 880 N.E.2d 488, ¶ 53 (7th Dist.).
“In proving a fraud claim, a person's intent to mislead another into relying on a
misrepresentation * * * of a material fact generally must be inferred from the totality of the
circumstances since a person's intent is rarely provable by direct evidence.” Fairbanks
Mobile Wash, Inc. v. Hubbell, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-05-062, 2009-Ohio-558, ¶
22, citing Leal v. Holtvogt, 123 Ohio App.3d 51, 76, 702 N.E.2d 1246, (2d Dist.1998).
       {¶30} Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Appellee had
knowledge of the prior water intrusion, flooding, and issues regarding the foundation, and
if he did have prior knowledge, whether he was reckless in his nondisclosure.              Id.
Consequently, since Appellee did not come forward with evidence demonstrating that no

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                         – 10 –

issue of material fact exists and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden
never shifted to Appellants, the nonmoving party, on this claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio
St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).
       {¶31} Thus, we conclude summary judgment was not warranted in Appellee’s
favor on Appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied
Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344, 346, 617 N.E.2d 1129 (1993) (“Courts should award summary
judgment with caution, being careful to resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor of
the nonmoving party.”)
       {¶32} As for the second aspect of Appellants’ assignment of error, i.e., the trial
court’s decision not to consider Plaintiff’s exhibit A, the unauthenticated estimate attached
to Samantha’s affidavit, we find no error.
       {¶33} Under      Civ.R.   56(C),    only    “pleadings,   depositions,    answers    to
interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case,
and written stipulations of fact” are permitted to support a motion for summary judgment.
Civ.R. 56(C). “Although Civ.R. 56 does not directly refer to evidentiary exhibits, such
evidence may be considered when it is incorporated by reference into a properly framed
affidavit pursuant to Civ. R. 56(E).” (Citation omitted.) Citibank N.A. v. Ogunduyile, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 21794, 2007-Ohio-5166, ¶ 10. Civ.R. 56(E) states the requirements
for authentication:
       Supporting and opposing affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be
       admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is
       competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. Sworn or certified
       copies of all papers or parts of papers referred to in an affidavit shall be
       attached to or served with the affidavit.
       {¶34} As stated, Appellants contend the trial court should have considered the
exhibit in light of the fact that Appellee did not object to its authenticity or admissibility.
Samantha’s affidavit states in part:
       5. The Defendant, MICHAEL P. ZEMBOWER, JR., contacted Callow
       Basement Waterproof and requested an inspection due to water intrusion
       in the basement during heavy rains. A copy evidencing said request is
       attached hereto and * * * marked Exhibit “A” for identification purposes.

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                       – 11 –

       6. To the best of my knowledge, Exhibit “A” attached hereto is a true and
       accurate copy of the inspection request made by the Defendant to Callow
       Basement Waterproof * * *.
       {¶35} This “inspection request” lists “Mike Zembower” and the address for the
residence that Appellants purchased from him.           It is dated March 14, 2017.      The
document states at the bottom that it is an “in house worksheet on inspection done
3/16/2017” and appears to be signed by a company representative.               However, the
document is not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of its authenticity
and the affidavit to which it is attached does not demonstrate Samantha has personal
knowledge of its creation or contents. There is no corresponding testimony by a person
verifying its contents or confirming it is what Appellants contend it to be.
       {¶36} Although a party can waive an objection to evidence that does not comply
with the requirements of Civ.R. 56(C), and a court “may” consider it, there is no rule
requiring it to do so. That decision resides in the trial court’s discretion. Biskupich v.
Westbay Manor Nursing Home, 33 Ohio App.3d 220, 222, 515 N.E.2d 632 (1986); Armaly
v. City of Wapakoneta, 3rd Dist. Auglaize No. 2-05-45, 2006-Ohio-3629, ¶ 17; State ex
rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. Mayfield Heights, 122 Ohio St.3d 260, 910 N.E.2d 455, 2009-
Ohio-2871, ¶ 17; Bank of Am. v. Bobovyik, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 13 CO 54, 2014-
Ohio-5499, ¶ 27.
       {¶37} When a trial court decides not to consider nonconforming evidence,
appellate courts review its decision for an abuse of discretion; we can find error only if the
trial court acted in an unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary manner. Chamberlin v.
The Buick Youngstown Co., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 02-CA-115, 2003-Ohio-3486, ¶ 6-7.
       {¶38} Because the exhibit attached to Samantha’s affidavit is not in a form that
may be used to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment and there is nothing
showing it is otherwise admissible, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
not considering it. See Powell v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, 131 Ohio App.3d 681,
685, 723 N.E.2d 596 (10th Dist.1998). Thus, this aspect of Appellants’ assigned error
lacks merit.

Case No. 21 MA 0112
                                                                                     – 12 –

                                           Conclusion
       {¶39} Based on the foregoing, the trial court was well within its discretion by not
considering the noncompliant summary judgment evidence.              Thus, this aspect of
Appellants’ assigned error lacks merit.
       {¶40} As stated, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in
Appellee’s favor as to Appellants’ breach of contract claim and fraudulent concealment
claims since no genuine issue of material fact exists.
       {¶41} However, when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to
Appellants, we conclude that genuine issues of fact exist regarding their fraudulent
misrepresentation cause of action. Upon viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of
the Appellants, we cannot conclude that reasonable minds can reach only one
conclusion. Thus, this aspect of Appellants’ assignment of error has merit. We reverse
the trial court’s judgment in part and remand to the trial court for further proceedings on
Appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
       {¶42} The trial court’s decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

D’Apolito, P. J., concurs.

Hanni, J. concurs.

Case No. 21 MA 0112
[Cite as Thackston v. Zembower, 2023-Ohio-1690.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, it is the final judgment and
order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County,
Ohio, is affirmed in part, and reversed in part. We hereby remand this matter to the trial
court for further proceedings on Appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim according
to law and consistent with this Court’s Opinion. Costs to be taxed against the Appellee.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                      NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.