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.

Adams v. Margarum

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

May 9, 2017

Bret Adams, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Christine Margarum et al., Defendants-Appellees.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 16 CV 02398

          The Law Office of Bryan D. Thomas, LLC, and Bryan D. Thomas, for appellant.

          On Brief: Arenstein & Andersen Co., L.PA., and Nicholas I. Andersen and Jessica L. Sohner, for appellees.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Bret Adams, appeals from the June 23, 2016 decision and judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of common pleas.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} Adams filed a complaint against defendants-appellees, Christine Margarum and Patricia Pappas alleging fraud and civil conspiracy. Specifically, Adams alleged that on March 4, 2014, he and Margarum agreed to pay Pappas $100, 000 on or before May 3, 2014 under the terms of a promissory note. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) A copy of the note was attached to the complaint.[1]

         {¶ 3} The complaint also alleged that, on November 6, 2014, Pappas filed a complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Franklin C.P. No. 14 CV 11486) claiming that Adams breached the terms of the note. (Compl. at ¶ 6.) Pappas did not name Margarum as a party in the lawsuit. Id.

         {¶ 4} A bench trial was held, and Margarum testified that she was not liable under the terms of the note and that she did not execute the note. (Compl. at ¶ 8, 9.)

         {¶ 5} Adams alleged in the complaint that he was present when Margarum executed the note. (Compl. at ¶ 10.)

         {¶ 6} Adams alleged that Margarum and Pappas committed fraud because Pappas never intended to receive any payments from Margarum pursuant to the terms of the note, in part, because Margarum is Pappas' daughter. (Compl. at ¶ 11, 14.) In support of his claim, Adams stated that:

[Margarum and Pappas] committed fraud by making certain statements and/or representations to [Adams], as detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. Specifically, when the Note was executed by Plaintiff [Adams] and Defendant Pappas (sic) on March 4, 2014, Defendant Pappas never intended to receive any payments from Defendant Margarum pursuant to the terms of the Note.

(Compl. at ¶ 14.) Adams further alleged that the fraud "allegation is unequivocally supported by the fact that Defendant Pappas did not make Defendant Margarum in the lawsuit as a Defendant." (Compl. at ¶ 16.)

         {¶ 7} At the time Adams filed his complaint, no decision had been issued in Franklin C.P. No. 14 ...


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.