Arts Rental Equipment Inc. v. Bear Creek Construction LLC

Full title: ARTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs. v. BEAR CREEK…

Court: Court of Common Pleas of Ohio

Date published: Jan 13, 2012

A0902785 (Ohio Com. Pleas Jan. 13, 2012)

Opinion

A0902785

01-13-2012

ARTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs. v. BEAR CREEK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al, Defendants.

Beth A. Myers, Judge.

DECISION

This case is before the Court on Alt & Witzig Engineering's ("A&W") Motion for Summary Judgment Against Bear Creek and KTP. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact that remain to be litigated and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ. R. 56(C); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), 477 U.S. 317. Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, if any, timely filed in the action and construed most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Civ. R. 56(C). The burden of establishing that the material facts are not in dispute, and that no genuine issue of fact exists, is on the party moving for summary judgment. Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 674 N.E.2d 1164. If the moving party asserts that there is an absence of evidence to establish an essential element of the non-moving party's claim, the moving party cannot discharge this burden with a conclusory allegation, but must specifically point to some part of the record which affirmatively demonstrates this absence of evidence. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264.

The Ohio Supreme Court has established three factors to be considered upon a motion for summary judgment. These three factors are;

(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that the conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.

Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146 N.E.2d 881 (quoting Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46).

Once a motion for summary judgment has been made and supported as provided in Civ. R. 56(C), the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden to set forth specific evidentiary facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial and cannot rest on the allegations or denials in the pleadings. Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 111, 570 N.E.2d 1095.

DISCUSSION

A&W seeks summary judgment against Bear Creek and KTP for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

1. Bear Creek

a. Breach of Contract

As for Bear Creek, the Court has granted similar motions. The Court finds no disputes of fact - A&W had a contract with Bear Creek, A&W performed under the contract, Bear Creek breached and A&W suffered damage. A&W is entitled to judgment on this claim.

b. Unjust Enrichment

Under Ohio law, a Plaintiff may not recover under both a contract claim and an unjust enrichment claim. Weiper v. W.A. Hill & Associates (1^st Dist. 1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 250, 661 N.E.2d 796. Therefore, summary judgment is denied on this claim since A&W is granted summary judgment on its contract claim.

c. Promissory Es ton pel/Detrimental Reliance

The Court finds that no separate action exists for "detrimental reliance." As for promissory estoppel, A&W cannot recover for both express contract and implied. Therefore, summary judgment as to this claim is denied.

2. KTP

a. Breach of Contract

KTP claims it had no contract with A&W. A&W points to a contract signed by "Steven Kelly" of "Kenwood Towne Place." The contract, however, is addressed to Bear Creek. The Court finds that questions of fact exist as to whether KTP had a contract with A&W and whether Kelly had actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of KTP.

b. Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment occurs when a party retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. Wheeler v. Martin, 2004 Ohio 6936 at * 13 quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 109, 111, 532 N.E.2d 124. In order to prevail on an unjust enrichment theory, the plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) he conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant knew of the benefit; and (3) the defendant retained the benefit under circumstances where it would be unjust for him to retain that benefit without payment. Wheeler v, Martin, 2004 Ohio 6936 at *13 quoting Pine v. Price, 2002 Ohio 5223.

The Court finds that questions of fact remain as to whether KTP was unjustly enriched by A&W. Moreover, if A&W can succeed on its contract claim, it cannot also recover under a theory of unjust enrichment.

c. Promissory Estoppel/Detrimental Reliance

As discussed above, no cause of action exists for detrimental reliance. As for a promissory estoppel claim against KTP, questions of fact exist precluding summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Summary judgment is granted to A&W on its contract claim against Bear Creek. The motion is denied as to the contract claim against KTP and the promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims.

The parties are referred to Local Rule 17 for preparation of an Entry.