Recorded affidavit traps Ohio title company in escrow fight for years

The man’s case on appeal came down to one point: his ex-partner had not spent anywhere close to $40,000 on improvements, so she had not held up her end of the bargain and the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration – the legal term for what each side gives up to make a contract binding. 

The appeals court was not persuaded. The agreement did not require her to spend $40,000. It said she would provide “a sum not to exceed” that amount. The parties’ own stipulated evidence showed she spent $1,191.34 on materials after the agreement was signed – paint and supplies from Sherwin Williams, items from Handyman, and carpet from Tondo Carpets. That was enough. 

The court applied a basic principle of Ohio contract law: when the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, courts enforce them as written. They do not rewrite the deal by reading in requirements the parties never included. The man wanted the court to add a condition – that his ex-partner prove her purchases resulted in actual improvements to the property.  

The court also flagged what it called a logical problem: the man had possession of the materials she bought but chose not to use them – then argued she failed to improve the property. 

The court awarded the woman $11,035.38 in reimbursement for costs predating the agreement – including $2,525 toward the purchase, $3,325 for flooring and carpet, and various hardware and furnishing purchases – plus half the net sale proceeds of $30,431.12, for a total of $41,466.50. The man received the remainder, which included the $15,000 Premiere Settlement had already disbursed. The total amount in dispute was $71,897.61.