Ohio Court of Appeals· 8/6/2020

Torrance v. Rom

Citations

157 N.E.3d 172
2020 Ohio 3971

Syllabus

Motion dismiss pleading standing contract breach representation property fraud damages fiduciary deceptive trade practices civil conspiracy. The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, because plaintiff did not have standing to pursue these claims against the defendants. Plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of the agreements. However, construing the material allegations in the complaint in favor of plaintiff as true, the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (\ODTPA\) and civil conspiracy.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary “simply because he was financially affected by” defendant’s breach of its contract with plaintiff’s company
rejecting an intended beneficiary claim where the contract did not reference the plaintiff or his interest in an LLC
“Only an intended third-party beneficiary has enforceable rights under a contract to which he or she is not a party; an incidental third-party beneficiary does not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: E.T. Gallagher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced 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.