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.

Karnofel v. Superior Waterproofing, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

December 29, 2017

ANN KARNOFEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUPERIOR WATERPROOFING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

         Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CV 01162. Affirm.

          Ann Karnofel, pro se, (Plaintiff-Appellant).

          Ned Gold, Jr., Ford, Gold, Kovoor & Simon, Ltd., (For Defendant-Appellee).

          OPINION

          COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J.

         {¶1} Ann Karnofel appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas to Superior Waterproofing, Inc., in her action for breach of contract and negligent workmanship. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

         {¶2} Ann Karnofel lives at 1528 Greenwood Avenue, Girard, Ohio, with her daughters, Delores Karnofel and Donna Jean Beck, who own the residence. On or about June 27, 2013, Superior submitted a contract to Delores Karnofel for waterproofing work and other improvements to the house. While submitted to Delores, the contract was approved by Ann, in Delores' presence. Work commenced September 16, 2013. October 1, 2013, Delores cancelled the contract before work was completed. Money was owed on the work actually done.

         {¶3} Superior filed an action against Delores in the Girard Municipal Court, that being Case No. 2014 CVF 01065. Delores Karnofel is a vexatious litigator, so she moved the Girard Municipal Court for leave to file an answer, counterclaim, and motion for summary judgment. Superior Waterproofing, Inc. v. Karnofel, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0113, 2016-Ohio-6992, ¶2. That court granted her leave. Id. Superior moved for summary judgment. Id. at ¶4. The trial court granted Superior's motion prior to the filing of any response. Id.

         {¶4} Delores appealed. In relevant part, this court concluded that, since she was responding to an action, she did not require leave of court to file an answer even though she is a vexatious litigator. Superior Waterproofing, Inc., 2016-Ohio-6992, ¶15, 20. However, we further concluded she did require leave of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas - the court which designated her a vexatious litigator - to proceed in the Girard Municipal Court case, on any claim requesting an order or other relief, such as her counterclaim. This court vacated the judgment of the Girard Municipal Court, and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at ¶21.

         {¶5} On remand, Delores filed a response to Superior's motion for summary judgment. However, a review of the docket in Case No. 2014 CVF 01065 reveals she never applied for leave to proceed with her counterclaim from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, and did not ultimately file a counterclaim. By a judgment entry filed January 20, 2017, the Girard Municipal Court once again granted Superior's motion for summary judgment. Delores timely noticed appeal from that judgment, having obtained this court's leave to do so. The matter is presently pending as Case No. 2017-T-0010.

         {¶6} In the meantime, on or about June 23, 2015, Ann Karnofel filed her complaint in this case, alleging breach of contract and negligent workmanship by Superior, arising from the same contract as that subject of the Girard Municipal Court case. Superior answered. Extensive motion practice ensued. Superior moved for summary judgment, which Ann opposed. By a thoughtful and incisive judgment entered March 2, 2017, the trial court granted Superior's motion. The trial court concluded that Ann's claims were compulsory counterclaims in the Girard Municipal Court case, and that Ann and Delores were in privity. Consequently, the trial court concluded that the Girard Municipal Court case constituted res judicata, binding in this case.

         {¶7} Ann timely noticed this appeal, assigning two errors:

         {¶8} "[1.] The trial court erred when it failed to see that appellant's daughter, Delores Karnofel's leave to proceed was not valid, when summary judgment was granted to defendant-appellee.

         {¶9} "[2.] The trial court erred when it ruled in defendant-appellee's favor for summary judgment."

         {¶10} Being interrelated, we treat the assignments ...


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.