Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court TRIAL NO.
Franke Co., L.P.A., and Gary F Franke, for
Reminger Co., L.P.A., Chad E. Willits and Adair M. Smith, for
Plaintiff-appellant Amanda Forbes appeals the trial
court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of
defendant-appellee Showmann, Inc., d.b.a. The Woodhouse Day
Spa ("Showmann") on Forbes's claims of breach
of contract, conversion and a violation of R.C. 4113.15.
Because we find that there is a genuine issue of material
fact with respect to Forbes's conversion claim, we
reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment on
that claim, but affirm the trial court's judgment in all
Facts and Background
Forbes was hired as a nail technician by Showmann in 2011. On
January 28, 2017, Forbes attended a work-related holiday
party where Showmann distributed raffle tickets for employees
to place in various containers in order to win certain
prizes. It is undisputed that Forbes did not pay for her
raffle ticket. One of the raffle prizes offered was a cruise
package that included a $2000 Carnival Cruise gift card, a
$500 Southwest Airlines gift card and a $200 Uber gift card
("the cruise package"). Only employees who had
worked for Showmann for at least two years were eligible to
enter the raffle for the cruise package. Forbes entered the
raffle, and Chris Wood, the owner of Showmann, announced at
the party that Forbes had won the cruise package. Forbes
stated in her affidavit that she requested her prize the day
after the raffle but she did not receive it. Showmann
terminated Forbes's employment a few weeks after the
holiday party. Wood testified in his deposition that Forbes
was not given the cruise package because that specific raffle
prize was conditioned on the recipient being an employee at
the time the cruise was taken. Forbes testified in her
affidavit that she was not told that the prize was
conditioned upon being an employee at the time the trip was
to be taken until after she was terminated.
Forbes sued Showmann for breach of contract, conversion and a
violation of R.C. 4113.15, alleging that the cruise package
she had won had been wrongfully withheld from her. Showmann
moved for summary judgment on all of Forbes's claims,
which the trial court granted.
Forbes now appeals that judgment, arguing in a single
assignment of error that the trial court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of Showmann.
Our review of the trial court's decision to grant summary
judgment is de novo. See Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of
Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162, 703 N.E.2d 841 (4th
Dist.1997). Civ.R. 56(C) provides that summary judgment may
be granted when the moving party demonstrates that (1) there
is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) viewing the
evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party,
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that
conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion
for summary judgment is made. See State ex rel. Grady v.
State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183, 677
N.E.2d 343 (1997); Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing
Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978).
A contract consists of an offer, an acceptance, and
consideration. See Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 91
Ohio App.3d 757, 760, 633 N.E.2d 1140 (9th
Without consideration, there can be no contract. Under Ohio
law, consideration consists of either a benefit to the
promisor or a detriment to the promisee. To constitute
consideration, the benefit or detriment must be
"bargained for." Something is bargained for if it
is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is
given by the promisee in exchange for that promise.
omitted.) Carlisle v. T & R Excavating, Inc.,123 Ohio App.3d 277, 704 N.E.2d 39 (9th Dist.1997). Whether
there is consideration supporting a contract is a question of
law. Irving Leasing Corp. v. M & H Tire Co., ...