Butorac v. Osmic

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 1812

Syllabus

Summary judgment Civ.R. 12(B)(6) directed verdict damages corporate shield. Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss. Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint and appellee alleged sufficient facts to prevent dismissal. Post-trial review of the denial of a motion to summary judgment is rendered moot when a jury finds in favor of the nonmoving party, demonstrating that there were genuine issues of material fact. Trial court properly denied motion for directed verdict where evidence established that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to who had a legal interest in the properties in question. Appellant could properly be sued personally where he never raised a corporate shield defense, never established that his behavior was covered by the corporate shield, and defended his actions as an individual actor not as someone acting on behalf of the corporation. Damages award did not include attorney fees where jury was not instructed on attorney fees and no testimony was presented to establish the amount of attorney fees. Award was not excessive when evidence was presented to establish damages, even though damages cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty. The damages award was within the range of numbers established by the evidence at trial.