Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

May 27, 2006

The "wet basement" case -- every lawyer's favorite -- is the subject in Zappitelli v. MillerThe plaintiffs had shelled out over half a million dollars for the property, only to find a week later that the basement was flooded and that the land around the house looked like the set of WaterworldTo top it off, the plaintiffs learned that a few days before the sale, the defendants had been told of the presence of active mold in the basement, but kinda forgot to put that on the disclosure form.  The plaintiffs sued, and were awarded $134,000 in damages for fraud, negligence, and breach of contract.  The defendants appealed the verdict, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed on the denial of their request to rescind the contract, and of attorney fees.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, which challenged the verdict, then turned to the cross-appeal.  It held that rescission wasn't an available remedy because the disclosure statute, RC 5302.30(K), essentially prohibits rescission as long as the seller provides the required disclosure form.


As for attorney fees, the jury had declined to award punitive damages, but asked whether it could grant attorney fees.  The trial judge said no, but the court reversed, holding that the jury was entitled to award attorney fees as part of the compensatory damages.

There's some reason to question that last concusion, though.  Most of the cases the opinion relies upon are 19th century rulings which do not address the key point:  is an award of punitive damages a prerequisite to awarding attorney fees?  In the only Cuyahoga County case the court refers to, punitive damages were also awarded.  The opinion doesn't mention the decision six years ago in Captretta v. Goodsonwhich had concluded that attorney fees couldn't be given without an award of punitive damages.  The language from the Supreme Court's decision in Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co., 63 Ohio St. 3d 657 (1992) also seems to back that up:

Without a finding of malice and the award of punitive damages, plaintiff cannot justify the award of attorney fees, unless there is a basis for sanctions under Civ. R. 11

To be sure, there are a number of cases which hold that attorney fees can be awarded where punitive damages would be appropriate, which seems to be what the court was driving at, but I haven't found any cases where fees were allowed absent an award of punitives, except where a statute or rule specifically allows them.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions