Haddad v. Maalouf-Masek
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 1983
Syllabus
Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance Civ.R. 56(F) request for continuance unjust enrichment conversion R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) constructive trust accounting denial of right to remedy Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. Because appellant did not seek relief under Civ.R. 56(F), trial court did not err in ruling on appellee's motion for summary judgment even though appellant had not completed all desired discovery. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's claim for tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance. Appellant's inheritance under her mother's will, which had been deemed valid in prior will contest action, was limited to $1 regardless of the amount of assets in her mother's probate estate, and appellant offered no evidence of a promise or other statement by her mother that indicated her intent to gift appellant any particular assets or property or her intent to make appellant a joint owner or beneficiary of any particular asset that would have transferred outside of probate following her death. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, damages under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1), or constructive trust/accounting. Appellant's claims for unjust enrichment and conversion were predicated on allegations that appellee did some wrong to their mother or their mother's property. Appellant did not allege any facts that showed that appellant conferred a benefit on appellee, that appellee was unjustly enriched by appellant or that appellee converted any property owned by appellant. Appellant's claim for damages under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) was based on appellee's alleged theft and embezzlement of their mother's assets, not appellant's assets. The imposition of a constructive trust and a request for an accounting are generally considered to be remedies, not independent causes of action, and appel
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Because the best guide to legislative intent is the words of the statute itself, the interpretation of a statute must begin with the literal words of the statute.” (citation modified)
- “Because the best guide to legislative intent is the words of the statute itself, the interpretation of a statute must NW. ASS’N OF INDEP. SCHOOLS V. LABRADOR 15 begin with the literal words of the statute.” (citation modified)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: E.A. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.