Court Opinion

ID: 9925298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 14:06:38.789192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:01.751054
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Timmons v. Hull, 2024-Ohio-178.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       CLARK COUNTY

 JAMES TIMMONS, ET AL.                            :
                                                  :
       Appellees                                  :   C.A. No. 2023-CA-23
                                                  :
 v.                                               :   Trial Court Case No. 19-CV-0297
                                                  :
 JAMES HULL, ET AL.                               :   (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas
                                                  :   Court)
       Appellants                                 :
                                                  :

                                             ...........

                                             OPINION

                                    Rendered on January 19, 2024

                                             ...........

RYAN L. THOMAS, Attorney for Appellants

EDWARD A. FRIZZELL, Attorney for Appellees

                                            .............

LEWIS, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendants-Appellants James Hull and Tuara Hull (collectively “Defendants”)

appeal from a judgment of the Clark County Court of Common Pleas, which granted

summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees James Timmons and Larry Timmons

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) on their unjust enrichment claim and awarded damages. For the
                                                                                          -2-

following reasons, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further

proceedings.

         I.    Procedural History and Facts

       {¶ 2} Plaintiffs, who are brothers, were equal partners in a farming business that

included buying and selling livestock. As part of that business, Plaintiffs sold cattle to

James Hull between approximately 2009 and 2017 based on a handshake agreement.

On June 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a civil action in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas

against the Defendants alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud relating

to the buying and selling of cattle during seven separate transactions that occurred over

the course of approximately one year.

       {¶ 3} According to Plaintiffs, it was the practice of the parties for James Hull to

make payment for the cattle immediately upon delivery of the cattle to James Hull or within

30 days of delivery. James Hull was a middleman who purchased heifers from Plaintiffs

and resold the cows to other dairy farmers or at market. Around 2016, James Hull

purchased cattle from Plaintiffs on seven separate occasions in which he wrote checks

for each transaction but requested Plaintiffs not cash the checks due to having insufficient

funds. All the checks were written on a joint checking account in the name of James and

Tuara Hull, as husband and wife. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants never made good

on the seven checks and therefore owed them $128,950, the aggregate amount of all the

checks. Although Plaintiffs attempted to collect the amount, Defendants denied that they

owed any payments to Plaintiffs and refused to pay, which led to the filing of the complaint.

       {¶ 4} According to the Defendants’ answer to the complaint, James Hull admitted
                                                                                            -3-

that he and Plaintiffs had engaged in the sale and purchase of cattle for several years.

However, Defendants denied that they owed Plaintiffs any money as all the transactions

had been paid in full, either by James Hull or a third party for the benefit of the Plaintiffs,

after evaluating the cattle.

       {¶ 5} On February 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

summary judgment. Although the trial court sustained Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file

a motion for summary judgment, additional discovery and depositions were completed

before Plaintiffs ultimately filed their motion.

       {¶ 6} On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to

all claims.     Following several joint continuances and additional discovery and

depositions, Defendants filed a response to the motion for summary judgment. In their

response, Defendants asserted that there was an issue of material fact in dispute and,

further, they requested that Tuara Hull be dismissed from the case as she had no

involvement in the purchasing and selling of any cattle.

       {¶ 7} On February 4, 2022, the trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment solely on the claim of unjust enrichment against both James and Tuara Hull and

ordered a hearing to determine damages. Following a damages hearing and closing

arguments, the trial court issued a judgment that awarded damages to Plaintiffs in the

amount of $120,150.00. The remaining two claims for fraud and breach of contract were

voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs on April 21, 2023.

       {¶ 8} Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal and raise the following two

assignments of error relating to the unjust enrichment claim:
                                                                                         -4-

      1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS

          IN GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE TO

          RESOLVE QUESTIONS OF FACT IN FAVOR OF THE MOVING

          PARTY.

      2. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO SATISFY THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS

          FOR    THEIR     CLAIM     OF    UNJUST      ENRICHMENT         AGAINST

          DEFENDANT TUARA HULL AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE

          PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT TUARA HULL BY GRANTING

          SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST HER.

      {¶ 9} In their first assignment of error, Defendants argue that the trial court erred

in granting summary judgment against them for unjust enrichment when there remained

a genuine issue of material fact. We agree.

        II.   Summary Judgment Standard

      {¶ 10} Appellate review of a trial court's ruling granting or denying a party’s motion

for summary judgment is de novo. Rhododendron Holdings, LLC v. Harris, 2021-Ohio-

147, 166 N.E.3d 725, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.), citing Schroeder v. Henness, 2d Dist. Miami No.

2012-CA-18, 2013-Ohio-2767, ¶ 42. De novo review requires an appellate court to apply

the same standard that the trial court should have used without deference to the trial

court’s findings. Riverside v. State, 2016-Ohio-2881, 64 N.E.3d 504, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.).

      {¶ 11} Civ.R. 56(C) provides for summary judgment where: “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
                                                                                            -5-

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” “Summary judgment will be granted only when there

remains no genuine issue of material fact and, when construing the evidence most

strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can only conclude that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d

24, 2006-Ohio-3455, 850 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 10, citing Civ.R. 56(C). “Even the inferences to

be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the affidavits and depositions must be

construed in the nonmoving party's favor.” Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 341,

617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993), citing Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 433,

424 N.E.2d 311 (1981).

       {¶ 12} “The moving party carries the initial burden of affirmatively demonstrating

that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated.” McAlpine v. McCloud,

2021-Ohio-2430, 175 N.E.3d 948, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d

112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988). “Once the moving party has satisfied its burden of

identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact, the nonmoving party bears a reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts

showing a genuine issue for trial.” Shaeffer v. FC Industries Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery

No. 29758, 2023-Ohio-3732, ¶ 15, citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662

N.E.2d 264 (1996).      “However, when a motion for summary judgment is made and

supported as provided in Civ.R. 56, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere

allegations of his pleading, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Civ.R.
                                                                                         -6-

56, must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue.”

(Citations omitted.) Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197

(1996). “If no genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment must be awarded

as a matter of law.” Dayton v. Parson, 2023-Ohio-1509, 213 N.E.3d 1212, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.).

       {¶ 13} “In a summary judgment review, the court may not weigh the proof or

choose among reasonable inferences, and the court is limited to examining the evidence

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Coterel v. Reed, 2016-Ohio-7411,

72 N.E.3d 1159, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d

116, 121, 413 N.E.2d 1187 (1980). “The purpose of summary judgment is not to try

issues of fact, but rather to determine whether triable issues of fact exist.” (Citation

omitted.) McGee v. Goodyear Atomic Corp., 103 Ohio App.3d 236, 242-243, 659 N.E.2d

317 (4th Dist.1995).     Significantly, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the

outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary

judgment.” Byrd at ¶ 12, quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248,

106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “[B]ecause summary judgment is a procedural

device to terminate litigation, it must be awarded with caution. Doubts must be resolved

in favor of the non-moving party.” Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 359, 604

N.E.2d 138 (1992), citing Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 333, 587 N.E.2d 825

(1992).

          III.   Unjust Enrichment

       {¶ 14} “Unjust enrichment occurs when a person ‘has and retains money or

benefits which in justice and equity belong to another[.]’ ” Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.,
                                                                                           -7-

106 Ohio St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-4985, 834 N.E.2d 791, ¶ 20, quoting Hummel v. Hummel,

133 Ohio St. 520, 528, 14 N.E.2d 923 (1938). “The elements of unjust enrichment

include: 1) a benefit conferred by a plaintiff upon a defendant; 2) knowledge by the

defendant of the benefit; and 3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under

circumstances where it would be unjust to do so without payment.” (Citations omitted.)

Harco Industries, Inc. v. Elco Textron, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19698, 2003-Ohio-

2397, ¶ 14. “Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim based on a contract implied in law,

* * * the purpose of which ‘is not to compensate the plaintiff for any loss or damage

suffered by him but to compensate him for the benefit he has conferred on the

defendant.’ ” (Citation omitted.) Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, L.L.C., 171 Ohio St.3d

464, 2022-Ohio-4363, 218 N.E.3d 838, ¶ 36, quoting Hughes v. Oberholtzer, 162 Ohio

St. 330, 335, 123 N.E.2d 393 (1954).        Furthermore, “ ‘[a] person is not entitled to

compensation on the ground of unjust enrichment if he received from the other that which

it was agreed between them the other should give in return.’ ” Ullmann v. May, 147 Ohio

St. 468, 478, 72 N.E.2d 63 (1947), quoting Restatement of the Law, Restitution, Section

107, Comment a (1937).

       IV.    Analysis

       {¶ 15} Plaintiffs asserted in their motion for summary judgment that for nearly

seven years, James Hull paid Plaintiffs in full upon delivery of the cattle, or no later than

30 days thereafter, by a personal check written on the joint account of Defendants.

However, in 2016, James Hull wrote seven checks that represented seven different

transactions for the sale of cattle. According to Plaintiffs, the seven checks at issue
                                                                                         -8-

constituted negotiable instruments that represented an unconditional promise of James

Hull to pay Plaintiffs the amounts listed on the checks. At no time did Plaintiffs submit

the checks to a bank or attempt to cash them. However, Plaintiffs alleged that the checks

were not presented to a bank based on James Hull’s representation that, although he did

not have sufficient funds at the time he provided the checks, he would compensate them

later, and Plaintiffs did not want to pay any penalty fees if a check were rejected by the

bank for insufficient funds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs asserted that the amount listed on the

checks demonstrated the total debt owed and due. Plaintiffs pointed to James Hull’s

admissions that he received the cattle from Plaintiffs in the amounts identified on the

checks to demonstrate that he knowingly received the benefit of possession of the cattle.

Plaintiffs further submitted that Defendants made three subsequent payments via check

totaling $8,800 toward the amount due, which demonstrated that the Defendants admitted

to owing the debt.

       {¶ 16} In opposing summary judgment as it related to the claim of unjust

enrichment, Defendants argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact. While

Defendants admitted that James Hull knowingly received cattle from Plaintiffs in the seven

transactions at issue, Defendants denied that Plaintiffs did not receive payment in full for

the actual value of the cattle, either through later payments or through third-party

payments.    According to Defendants, James Hull purchased the cattle from James

Timmons and would provide a holder check at the time of receipt based on an agreed

course of conduct. Because Plaintiffs did not keep records of which cattle were provided

to James Hull, they requested a holder check to identify the number of cattle James Hull
                                                                                         -9-

hauled away. After receiving the cattle, James Hull would check them at his own facilities

for any issues that might lessen their value. If all the cattle were determined to be

adequate, James Hull would tell James Timmons to cash the holder check. However, if

there were any problems with the heifers, James Hull would take the heifers to be sold at

third-party establishments where the highest prices could be obtained, and Plaintiffs

would receive payment directly from the third party for those heifers. Any difference in

the balance between the original check and the actual value of the heifers that James

Hull kept or sold to a third party would be addressed during the parties’ next transaction.

The original holder check would then be destroyed. Based on this course of conduct,

Defendants denied owing Plaintiffs any money.

        {¶ 17} Defendants also argued in their response that Tuara Hull was not a proper

party and should be dismissed from the lawsuit. According to James Hull’s affidavit,

Tuara Hull was completely uninvolved in the cattle business.          This was affirmed by

James Timmons’s deposition testimony stating that all transactions occurred between

him and James Hull and that he had not spoken with Tuara Hull since the 1980s. James

Timmons also testified during his deposition that he was “befuddled” that Tuara Hull’s

name was even on the complaint.

        {¶ 18} The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding

that:

        the court is not persuaded that the seven (7) checks were merely “holder”

        checks for purposes of documentation of the transaction and number of

        cattle sold. First, it would have been quite easy, and more logical, to record
                                                                                        -10-

      the transactions, not with checks, but with a simple document. Second,

      two of the checks, numbers 17113 and 17210, do not even identify the

      number of cattle in the transaction. Third, it makes much more sense that

      Defendants tendered the checks to Plaintiffs and told them to hold off

      cashing or depositing them because Defendants did not have sufficient

      funds to cover them at the time. Finally, Defendants have failed to produce

      any checks they claim to have tendered to Plaintiffs bearing the adjusted

      value.   Defendants concede that the subsequent value determination

      “almost always” resulted in at least some cattle being identified as having

      blemishes/defects, and that when this occurred, the parties “would agree

      upon the appropriate value and would exchange payment and/or settle up

      during their next face-to-face interaction.”       Defendants presented no

      evidence that they exchanged payment or settled up on these seven (7)

      transactions.

Summary Judgment Entry, February 4, 2022.

      {¶ 19} The trial court then determined that the “only evidence before the Court”

was the seven checks presented by Plaintiffs, which constituted a promise by Defendants

to pay the specified sum on the checks. Accordingly, because the checks were never

deposited or cashed, Defendants were unjustly enriched “to some extent” and the trial

court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

      {¶ 20} It is clear from the language in its decision that the trial court weighed the

credibility of the parties in support of their respective positions.   “Credibility issues
                                                                                          -11-

typically arise in summary judgment proceedings when one litigant's statement conflicts

with another litigant's statement over a fact to be proved. Since resolution of the factual

dispute will depend, at least in part, upon the credibility of the parties or their witnesses,

summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate.” Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d at 341, 617

N.E.2d 1123. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court could weigh the credibility

of the parties because the Defendants did not submit any checks or bank records to

support their position and James Hull’s affidavit was self-serving. We do not agree.

       {¶ 21} We have previously stated that “ ‘[a]n otherwise competent affidavit is not

invalid for the sole reason that it is executed by a party and submitted to aver facts in

opposition to summary judgment. To the contrary, a party's affidavit is competent to

create a genuine issue of material fact if made on personal knowledge.’ ” Smith v. CBert

Properties, LLC, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28058, 2019-Ohio-12, ¶ 11, quoting Fifth Third

Mtge. Co. v. Berman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-637, 2012-Ohio-4411, ¶ 17.

Furthermore, Civ.R. 56 imposes no corroboration requirement. Id.

       {¶ 22} James Hull’s affidavit averred that beginning in 2010, James Timmons

requested that he provide a holder check for the cattle he took back to his facilities for

inspection so that James Timmons would have proof that the cattle belonged to him until

they could settle-up on payment during their next transaction. If any of the cattle were

deemed undesirable after inspection, James Hull would inform James Timmons, who

would destroy the holder check, and James Hull would issue a replacement check based

on the actual value of the cattle. The undesirable cattle would be sold to a third-party

under James Timmons’s name and James Timmons would receive a check directly from
                                                                                        -12-

the third-party. According to James Hull, the checks at issue were holder checks that

should have been destroyed and payment for those underlying transactions had been

completed based on subsequent transactions. James Hull denied ever telling James

Timmons that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to cover the cattle he

purchased and denied owing any money to the Plaintiffs.

       {¶ 23} The deposition of James Timmons, as well as the affidavit of James Hull,

clearly reflect that all business transactions for cattle occurred solely between James

Timmons and James Hull via a handshake agreement.             Both James Timmons and

James Hull indicated that the value of a heifer depended on various factors, such as how

close the heifer was to giving birth, whether the heifer had four good udders to produce

milk, and whether they were large, mature cows who had calved before.               James

Timmons testified that James Hull determined what the value of the heifers was, not him.

He also testified that James Hull would take the cows back to Hull’s facilities to inspect

them, verify they were bred, and process them. While James Timmons claimed that Hull

paid him in full prior to James Hull’s evaluation of the cattle, James Hull claimed that he

provided a holder check as documentation for the amount of cattle he took, and the true

value of the heifers would be determined after he evaluated them. James Hull would

then provide replacement checks for the true value of the heifers and the holder checks

would be destroyed.

       {¶ 24} Whether or not it would have been “quite easy, and more logical” for James

Timmons to keep documentation of all the cattle he sold in a simple document, James

Timmons testified in his deposition that he did not maintain business records to document
                                                                                        -13-

either the number of cattle or which particular cattle were sold to James Hull. Instead,

he relied on the memo line of the checks James Hull wrote to identify how many of his

cattle were sold. Likewise, for any sales made to third parties, James Timmons would

receive payment directly from the third-party, and the check would list the tag numbers of

each of his cows sold in order for him to assess how many cows he sold. According to

James Timmons, only the checks from James Hull that had the number of cattle listed on

them in the memo line were direct transactions where James Hull gave him a check for

the cattle upon receipt. The other checks that did not list the number of cattle in the

memo line were still for cattle but were “replacement” checks rather than original purchase

checks. James Timmons admitted in his deposition and affidavit that he and James Hull

continued to do business together and engaged in more than just the seven transactions

at issue during the time frame in question. All of James Hull’s other checks were cashed

without issue. Marilyn Timmons, James Timmons’s wife and the bookkeeper for the

farm, testified in her deposition that when they received a “replacement” check, she would

destroy the original. However, she had no personal knowledge as to why they would

receive a replacement check. Notably, the basis for why James Timmons did not cash

the checks at issue was based on the allegation that James Hull told him not to cash them

due to having insufficient funds. James Hull, on the other hand, denied ever telling

James Timmons not to cash the checks due to insufficient funds.

      {¶ 25} “In deciding whether an evidentiary conflict exists so as to preclude

summary judgment, a trial court must adhere to Civ.R. 56(C) and view the record in the

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d at 341, 617
                                                                                         -14-

N.E.2d 1123, citing Kunkler v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 135, 138, 522

N.E.2d 477 (1988). “The inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in

the affidavits and other exhibits must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party

opposing the motion, and if when so viewed reasonable minds can come to differing

conclusions the motion should be overruled.” Hounshell, 67 Ohio St.2d at 433, 424

N.E.2d 311.

       {¶ 26} In this case, because there was no written contract between the parties, the

only two individuals who had personal knowledge of the particulars of their handshake

agreement and the common practices between the parties were James Timmons and

James Hull. James Hull’s affidavit was based on personal knowledge regarding the

course of conduct between him and James Timmons. Even still, Defendants relied on

more than just James Hull’s affidavit in responding to summary judgment to raise a

genuine issue of material fact, most notably James Timmons’s deposition testimony. We

conclude that the trial court erred in its reasoning and ultimately in its decision that

summary judgment was appropriate. Construing James Hull’s affidavit and the evidence

in the record in a light most favorable to Defendants, we conclude that there remained a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether James Hull had made full payment for the

cattle he purchased pursuant to their oral contract. Thus, the trial court erred in granting

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim.

       {¶ 27} Defendants’ first assignment of error is sustained.

        V.    Second Assignment of Error

       {¶ 28} In their second assignment of error, Defendants contend that the trial court
                                                                                          -15-

erred in granting summary judgment against Tuara Hull for unjust enrichment because

the Plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of unjust enrichment as it pertains

specifically to her.   Defendants request this Court reverse the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Because we have concluded

that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment

claim as detailed above, we need not address the merits of the second assignment of

error. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

       {¶ 29} Defendants’ second assignment of error is overruled as moot.

       VI.    Conclusion

       {¶ 30} Having sustained the first assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of

the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

                                      .............

WELBAUM, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.