Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D filed a complaint with the trial court in which she alleged that Ds owed her $60,059.70 stemming from a loan that appellees received on January 1, 2004. P orally agreed to loan D a total of $163,800 at an annual interest rate of 1.5 percent. The loan was provided in two installments. The first installment of $6,800 was provided on January 15, 2004. The first installment was used to pay off a home equity loan in order to facilitate the sale of Ds' residence. Two weeks later, P loaned Ds the remaining $157,000 to fund Ds' purchase of another residence. Ds were obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of $300 until they sold their old residence. Once the old residence was sold, the monthly payment was to increase to $500. Ds made monthly payments of $300 until they sold the old residence in August 2004. Ds profited $63,025.50 from the sale of the old residence. This profit was applied to the balance of the loan at issue in this case, and Ds subsequently commenced making monthly payments of $500. Beginning in February 2013, appellees ceased making monthly payments. P granted D, her daughter, a forbearance from making monthly payments due to D's loss of her job. The parties disagree as to the nature of this forbearance. D understood that the remaining balance of the loan was forgiven. P insists that the forbearance was temporary and that payments were to resume once D's financial condition improved. D demanded a continuation of monthly payments from Ds once she concluded that D was not making a good faith effort to secure meaningful employment. When Ds failed to resume monthly payments on the oral agreement, P filed this complaint. Ds filed a motion to dismiss, because the agreement was unenforceable under R.C. 1335.05, the statute of frauds, because it could not be completed within a period of one year. The trial court denied Ds' motion to dismiss on April 27, 2017, because D alleged that the $300 and $500 monthly payments were minimum payments, the court found that the loan could have been repaid before the expiration of the one-year period and, therefore, the agreement fell outside the statute of frauds. After discovery Ds filed a motion for summary judgment on December 7, 2017. P filed her own motion for summary judgment the next day. The court found that the parties' oral agreement could not be completed within one year because the parties agreed to monthly payments of $300 and $500, and did not contemplate increasing or decreasing the required monthly payments during the repayment period. The court granted Ds' motion for summary judgment and denied P's. P appealed. P argues that the trial court erred in its application of R.C. 1335.05.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co