Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Green v. Full Service Property Inspections, LLC

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 30, 2013

CHARLES GREEN, ET AL. Appellants
v.
FULL SERVICE PROPERTY INSPECTIONS, LLC, et al. Appellee

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 12 CVF 115

DARREN W. DEHAVEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellants.

ADAM J. DAVIS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

JENNIFER HENSAL, JUDGE.

(¶1} Plaintiffs-Appellants, Charles and Elizabeth Green, appeal from a judgment of the Barberton Municipal Court. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.

I.

(¶2} On August 6, 2010, Mrs. Green entered into a written agreement with Full Service Property Inspections, LLC to perform an inspection of a home located at 10608 Mogadore Ave. NW, Uniontown, Ohio.[1] The Greens had signed an agreement to purchase the property contingent on the results of a home inspection. They chose Full Service to perform the inspection from a list of home inspection companies provided to them by their realtor. The Greens had no prior business dealings with Full Service. The agreement provided that Full Service would notify the Greens of any "major observable deficiencies in the condition of the property[, ] but will not discover or include latent defects or hidden defects or deficiencies." The agreement provided that the scope of the inspection included the home's insulation and ventilation systems.

(¶3} Full Service provided the Greens with an inspection report that notified them of some potential problems, which the seller of the property remedied. The Greens purchased the property, and moved in September of 2010. In December 2010 or January 2011, they noticed moisture spots on the master bedroom and bathroom ceilings. The Greens allege that the attic has excessive moisture due to improper ventilation as the attic insulation is covering the soffit vents and the siding is covering the gable vents. They maintain that Full Service and its inspector, Scott Julian, should have noticed the problems with the attic insulation and ventilation during the inspection and alerted them accordingly.

(¶4} The Greens filed a complaint on January 12, 2012, in which they allege that Full Service and Mr. Julian breached the inspection contract and violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment on all of the Greens' claims, which was granted by the trial court on October 30, 2012. The Greens filed a timely appeal, and raise one assignment of error for our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING APPELLEES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

(¶5} The Greens argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all their claims. This Court disagrees.

(¶6} An appellate court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). "We apply the same standard as the trial court, viewing the facts in the case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolving any doubt in favor of the non-moving party." Garner v. Robart, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25427, 2011-O ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.