Court Opinion

ID: 9400500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 15:09:55.838834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:45.789714
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Worldwide Motor Sales Ltd. v. Young, 2023-Ohio-1897.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

WORLDWIDE MOTOR SALES LTD.,                           :

                Plaintiff-Appellant,                  :
                                                                 No. 112015
                v.                                    :

DONALD YOUNG, ET AL.,                                 :

                Defendants-Appellees.                 :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CV-20-940536

                                           Appearances:

                Thomas L. Colaluca, for appellant.

                Rolfes Henry Co., LPA, and James J. Birch, for appellees.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                  Worldwide Motor Sales Ltd. (“Worldwide”) appeals from the trial

court’s judgment in favor of Donald Young (“Young”) and Proper Attire

Transportation, Inc. (“Proper”) (collectively, “Appellees”), in this breach-of-contract

case. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we reverse the lower

court’s judgment.
I.   Facts and Procedural History

               On November 23, 2020, Worldwide filed a complaint against Young

and Proper alleging breach of contract, civil theft, conversion, constructive trust, and

equitable lien. Worldwide attached to the complaint, as Exhibit A, a copy of a

document titled “Bill of Sale of Trailer,” which articulates the terms for the purchase

of a specific 2020 Sun Country trailer for $64,500 (the “Agreement”). Pertinent to

this appeal, the Agreement states the following: (1) “IN CONSIDERATION OF the

sum of $64,500.00 USD, * * * paid by cash, the receipt of which consideration is

acknowledged, [Proper] SELLS AND DELIVERS to [Worldwide] the * * * trailer

* * *”; and (2) “Title will be mailed within 15-20 business days.”

               Worldwide filed a motion for summary judgment on Count one,

breach of contract. According to Worldwide, Young and Proper “failed to transfer

title to the Trailer or refund the funds used to purchase the Trailer * * *.” Young and

Proper responded, seeking an order denying Worldwide’s motion and requesting

judgment be entered in their favor. According to Young and Proper, “payment was

never made by [Worldwide] to Defendant for the Trailer.”

               On August 16, 2022, the court issued a journal entry that states:

      Judgement rendered in favor of defendant [Young] and [Proper].

      In conjunction with the Allen County Court of Common Pleas Case
      No. CV-2020-0398 and Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas No. CV-20-
      939787, all claims amongst the parties have been litigated and
      resolved.

      [Worldwide’s] claims hereby dismissed as a matter of law.
              It is from this order that Worldwide appeals, raising three

assignments of error.

      I.   The trial court erred by granting Defendants/Appellee’s counter-
      motion and denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

      II.  As a matter of law, the trial court erred in denying the Appellant’s
      motion for summary judgment and grating [sic] the Appellee’s counter-
      motion.

      III. The trial court erred in applying the Allen [sic] ALLEN COUNTY
      COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. CV-2020-0398 * * * to the
      case at bar.

II. Law and Analysis

      A. Summary Judgment

              Appellate review of a trial court’s decision granting summary

judgment is de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d

241 (1996). Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), the party seeking summary judgment must

prove that (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) they are 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 nonmoving party. Dresher v. Burt,

75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).

              If the party moving for summary judgment meets its burden under

Civ.R. 56(C), “the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden to point to evidence of

specific facts in the record that demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of

material fact for trial.” United States Bank Natl. Assn. v. O’Malley, 2019-Ohio-

5340, 150 N.E.3d 532, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). “Where the nonmoving party fails to meet

this burden, summary judgment is appropriate.” Id.
      B. Breach of Contract

               As stated, Worldwide’s motion for summary judgment addressed

only its claim for breach of contract. Young and Proper’s cross-motion likewise

related only to Worldwide’s breach-of-contract claim. “In an action for breach of

contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving four elements: (1) the existence of a

contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4)

damage or loss to the plaintiff.” DPLJR, Ltd. v. Hanna, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 90883, 2008-Ohio-5872, ¶ 16. This court has additionally held that “[w]here

contract language is unambiguous, the contract must be enforced as written, i.e., the

court may look only to the plain language of the parties’ agreement to determine the

parties’ rights and obligations.” Vail v. String, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107112, 2019-

Ohio-984, ¶ 27.

      C. Summary-Judgment Evidence in the Case at Hand

          1. Worldwide’s Summary-Judgment Evidence

               In its summary-judgment motion, Worldwide relied on the following

evidence to show that Young and Proper breached the Agreement. Worldwide

attached, as exhibit No. 1, Young’s verified responses to Worldwide’s discovery

requests. In the discovery responses, Young admitted that he is an authorized

representative of Proper, and that he “entered into an agreement with Steve Long,

who represented himself to be an agent of [Worldwide], to sell the Trailer in

exchange of payment of $64,500.” Asked to “Admit that the signature on Exhibit A

is Defendant Donald Young’s signature,” Young responded, “Denied on the grounds
that the copy of Exhibit A provided with the Complaint is difficult to read and has

hand-written notes on it that are not part of the original. Defendant’s signature is

on ‘Defendant Young 89-90.’”       Young did not admit or deny that he “never

transferred the title” to Worldwide; instead, Young answered that he “never has had

possession of the title.”

               Exhibit No. 2 to Worldwide’s motion for summary judgment is a copy

of a two-page document titled “Bill of Sale of Trailer” that is marked “Defendant

Young 89” and “Defendant Young 90,” the material terms of which are identical to

the Agreement attached to Worldwide’s complaint as Exhibit A. 1 Both documents

state, in the first paragraph, “IN CONSIDERATION OF the sum of $64,500 USD,

* * * paid by cash, the receipt of which consideration is acknowledged, [Proper]

SELLS AND DELIVERS to [Worldwide] the * * * trailer * * *.” According to the

Agreement, it was “signed, sealed and delivered” on April 16, 2020, before a witness.

The Agreement also states that “Title will be mailed within 15-20 business days.”

                Attached as exhibit No. 4 to Worldwide’s motion is an affidavit of

Worldwide’s counsel in this case in which he stated, “The Bill of Sale, marked as

Worldwide Exhibit 2, was one of the documents produced and referenced in

Defendants’ Responses as Young 89.”

      1 As discussed, our review of these two copies of the Agreement shows that the
material terms are identical. There are handwritten notes on Exhibit A to Worldwide’s
complaint that are not found on Defendant Young 89 and 90. The handwritten notes are
immaterial to this case.
               Worldwide’s exhibit No. 3 is a journal entry from Cuyahoga C.P.

No. CV-20-939787, in which Worldwide, as plaintiff, filed a complaint against Steve

Long and Long’s Specialized Transport, L.L.C., as defendants. Exhibit No. 3 grants

default judgment to Worldwide, finding that the defendants in that case had not

made rental payments that were required under a lease for a trailer.

           2. Young and Proper’s Summary-Judgment Evidence

               In their brief in opposition to Worldwide’s summary-judgment

motion and in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, Young and

Proper stated that they do “not dispute the facts as stated in Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.” Further, they relied on the following evidence to show “one

very important fact: payment was never made by [Worldwide, Worldwide’s] agent,

or anyone else to [Young or Proper] for the Trailer.” First, Appellees attached

Young’s affidavit, which states that “I entered into a Bill of Sale with Mr. Long but

despite numerous requests, Steve Long never paid [Proper] or myself any of the

agreed upon price of $64,500.”2 Young’s affidavit further states that “due to the

failure of payment * * * I never provided WorldWide with a certificate of title nor an

assignment of certificate of title.”

               Second, Young and Proper attached a December 22, 2020 journal

entry and order issued in Proper Attire Transport, Inc. v. 1st Transport, Inc., Allen

C.P. No. CV 2020 0398. The order directs the sheriff of Allen County to “seize the

      2 Young’s affidavit is barely legible, and this quote is the court’s best attempt at
deciphering the document.
property more fully described in Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Possession and

accompanying Affidavit, and to deliver said property to Plaintiff * * *.” Appellees

did not attach the aforementioned motion for order of possession or the

accompanying affidavit to its summary-judgment motion.

          D. Analysis

                  Upon review, we find that the evidence submitted by the parties

demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties

entered into a contract. Worldwide and Appellees agree that they entered into the

Agreement, which expressly states that Proper sold the trailer to Worldwide in

exchange for $64,500 paid in cash, “the receipt of which consideration is

acknowledged.” Proper also agreed to tender title to the trailer to Worldwide within

15-20 business days.

                  We find that the terms of the contract are unambiguous.

          The purpose of contract construction is to discover and effectuate the
          intent of the parties. Saunders v. Mortensen, 101 Ohio St. 3d 86, 2004-
          Ohio-24, ¶ 9, 801 N.E.2d 452. The intent of the parties is presumed to
          reside in the language they chose to use in their agreement. Kelly v.
          Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 132, 31 Ohio B. 289, 509 N.E.2d
          411 (1987). Principles of contract interpretation preclude us from
          rewriting the contract by reading into its language or terms that the
          parties omitted. DDR Rio Hondo, L.L.C. v. Sunglass Hut Trading,
          L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98986, 2013-Ohio-1800, ¶ 23.

Grigoryan v. MaxOut Sports, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-6982, 94 N.E.3d 1214, ¶ 23 (8th

Dist.).

                  Young’s affidavit claiming Worldwide has not performed under the

contract contradicts the plain, clear terms of the contract. “The parol evidence rule
is a rule of substantive law that prohibits a party who has entered into a written

contract from contradicting the terms of the contract * * *.” Ed Schory & Sons, Inc.

v. Francis, 75 Ohio St.3d 433, 440, 662 N.E.2d 1074 (1996). See also Grimmer v.

Shirilla, 2016-Ohio-5423, 76 N.E.3d 363, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.).            Under these

circumstances, we find that Young’s affidavit alone, with its bare assertion that

Worldwide did not pay Young or Proper, is insufficient to alter the unambiguous

contract.

              The undisputed evidence further demonstrates that Proper breached

the Agreement by not tendering the title. Young, the representative of Proper,

admitted that neither he nor Proper had possession of the title. They do not dispute

that they did not tender the title within 15 to 20 days of when the Agreement was

entered into in April 2020.

              Upon review, we find that the trial court erred by granting judgment

to Young and Proper and by dismissing Worldwide’s claims. Furthermore, we find

that the evidence demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of material fact and

that Worldwide is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach-of-contract

claim.

              Finally, we address the statement in the court’s August 16, 2022

journal entry regarding the Allen County case and the other Cuyahoga County case.

Upon review, we find the Allen County journal entry and order immaterial to the

contract dispute between Young, Proper, and Worldwide that is the subject of the

instant case. Young and Proper failed to establish that the Allen County journal
entry concerned Worldwide or the transaction in the Agreement. Likewise, we find

that nothing regarding the journal entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-20-939787 has

any relevance to the case at hand.

              Worldwide’s first and second assignments of error are sustained.

Worldwide’s third assignment of error is moot pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). The

trial court’s judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court with

instructions to grant Worldwide’s summary-judgment motion in part regarding the

breach-of-contract claim, dismiss Worldwide’s remaining claims, deny Young and

Proper’s summary-judgment motion, and determine the amount, if any, of

Worldwide’s damages.

              Judgment reversed and case remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this appeal.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR