Estate of Cruz v. Peffley

Citations

• 218 N.E.3d 1021
• 2023 Ohio 2081

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiffs-appellees had filed their claims within the applicable statute of limitations and that they had standing to pursue their claims under Ohio's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence on the defense of mitigation of damages. To the extent that the judgment found in favor of nine plaintiffs-appellees who did not testify, it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, because those parties did not provide evidence that they had invested in the Ponzi scheme in good faith. To the extent that the judgment found in favor of three plaintiffs-appellees who did testify against defendant-appellant Chad Leopard, it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the only evidence supporting an initial cash investment was Leopard's own testimony and documentation created by an operator of a Ponzi scheme. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.