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.

Washburn v. Gvozdanovic

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

May 24, 2017

STEPHEN J. WASHBURN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARINKO GVOZDANOVIC, Defendant-Appellee.

         Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas TRIAL NO. A-1502783

          The Matre Law Group, Co., LPA and Kerrie K. Matre, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          Finney Law Firm, LLC, Christopher P. Finney and Bradley M. Gibson, for Defendant-Appellee.

          OPINION

          MYERS, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Stephen J. Washburn has appealed from the trial court's entry granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Marinko Gvozdanovic on Washburn's claims for fraud, breach of contract, and a violation of R.C. 5302.30.

         {¶2} Washburn has raised three assignments of error for our review. In the first two assignments of error, he challenges the trial court's entry of summary judgment on his claim for fraud. In the third assignment of error, Washburn argues that the trial court erred in striking the affidavit of his expert witness. We affirm.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         {¶3} On October 25, 2009, Washburn and Gvozdanovic entered into a contract for Washburn to purchase the property located at 622 Fleming Road from Gvozdanovic for $92, 000. The contract provided that the property was being sold "as is." Gvozdanovic had executed a "Residential Property Disclosure Form, " which Washburn signed and acknowledged on the date that the contract was entered into. Section E of the disclosure form was titled "STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, " and it contained the following language: "Do you know of any movement, shifting, deterioration, material cracks/settling (other than visible minor cracks or blemishes) or other material problems with the foundation, basement/crawl space, floors, or interior/exterior walls?" In response to this question, Gvozdanovic checked a box marked yes and wrote that "there has been ground movement in the area."

         {¶4} Prior to closing on the property, Washburn visited it multiple times and had several inspections conducted. Washburn had noticed a small amount of mold on his first visit to the property, and he hired Tencon, Inc., a technical environmental consulting company, to inspect the property for water issues. On December 30, 2009, Tencon sent Washburn a report indicating that it had found visible mold growth in the basement of the home, and that "ground water appears to be entering the basement via the cement block wall through the block structure, through minor cracks and/or where the blocks join the footer and basement floor."

         {¶5} On February 11, 2010, Truman P. Young & Associates conducted a structural inspection on the property. The report issued following that inspection indicated that "[t]he basement floor and first floor are noticeably tilted towards the front of the house, indicating probable settlement of the foundation." The report further stated that "[i]t is likely that moisture is penetrating the basement walls through cracks, however, the extent and severity of any cracking cannot be determined without removing the gypsum board wall finish and wood furring." The report noted that the inspection did not involve the removal of any finishes to view concealed conditions. Washburn did not remove the gypsum board prior to closing.

         {¶6} Washburn closed on the property on March 19, 2010. TKS Construction Services then performed construction and remodeling work on the home. TKS invoiced Washburn for its work on May 20, 2010. Sometime prior to sending the invoice, TKS informed Washburn that it had discovered cracked foundation walls after damaged drywall had been removed during mold remediation.

         {¶7} Approximately one year after taking possession of the property, Washburn noticed that his asphalted driveway had begun to crumble and heave, that horizontal cracks were forming on the front porch, and that new cracks were forming in the basement walls. Washburn hired Quentin Gorton, a geotechnical engineer, to inspect the property. After his inspection on May 25, 2011, Gorton told Washburn that the property sat on an active landslide. He additionally informed Washburn that he had previously been hired by Gvozdanovic to inspect the property, and that he had told Gvozdanovic that the property sat on an active landslide.

         {¶8} On May 22, 2015, Washburn filed suit against Gvozdanovic, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and a violation of R.C. 5302.30. With respect to the fraud claim, Washburn's complaint alleged that Gvozdanovic had committed fraud by misrepresenting the condition of the property in the disclosure form and by concealing the damage caused by the landslide with new drywall and asphalt.

         {¶9} The trial court issued a case management order on July 30, 2015. The order provided that Washburn's experts had to be identified in writing by December 14, 2015. The order further stated that "[e]xperts not named by the dates set forth herein shall not be permitted to testify. Expert reports shall be provided to opposing counsel within 30 days after the expert has been identified unless counsel otherwise agrees." In his responses to Gvozdanovic's interrogatories, which were served upon Gvozdanovic's counsel on December 3, 2015, Washburn named Gorton as an expert witness. Washburn's discovery responses further indicated that he had received only an oral report from Gorton. Washburn did not provide a written report by the specified deadline.

         {¶10} Gvozdanovic moved for summary judgment on Washburn's claims. Along with his memorandum in opposition to Gvozdanovic's motion for summary judgment, Washburn filed both his own affidavit and an affidavit from Gorton. Attached to Gorton's affidavit was a letter from Gorton to Washburn's counsel stating that the damage to Washburn's property had been caused by a landslide. This letter is a written report of the expert's opinions.

         {¶11} Gvozdanovic filed a motion to strike Gorton's affidavit because Washburn had failed to timely provide an expert report from Gorton.

         {¶12} In the same entry, the trial court granted both Gvozdanovic's motions to strike Gorton's affidavit and for summary judgment. With respect to the motion to strike, the trial court mistakenly found that Washburn had failed to identify Gorton as an expert prior to the deadline set in the case.

         {¶13} The trial court provided numerous reasons in support of its grant of summary judgment. As relevant to this appeal, it found that Washburn's claim for fraud was filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations. And with respect to the merits of the claim for fraud, the trial court found that summary judgment was appropriate because Washburn failed to establish that Gvozdanovic fraudulently concealed the existence of a landslide or that he had justifiably relied on a misrepresentation made by Gvozdanovic.

         {¶14} Washburn has appealed from the trial court's entry. His assignments of error challenge the trial court's grant of summary judgment on his claim for fraud and the trial court's striking of Gorton's affidavit. Washburn raises no challenge to the trial court's entry of ...


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.