Zeedyk v. 5C's Drying
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 618
Syllabus
Contract Formation; Oral Contract; Implied-in-Fact Contract; Meeting of the Minds; Breach of Contract; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Foreclosure; Promissory Note; Want of Consideration; Attorney Fees; Segregation of Fees. The trial court properly granted judgment in foreclosure on the plaintiffs' promissory note because there is some competent, credible evidence that the defendants failed to carry their burden to prove a want of consideration. The trial court did not err by determining that no enforceable contract existed regarding the sale of a hauling business—either express or implied-in-fact—because some competent, credible evidence demonstrated that the parties formed an enforceable contract. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding the plaintiffs the full amount of their requested attorney fees without segregating the costs associated with the fee-shifting foreclosure claim from those incurred in litigating the unrelated contract disputes.
Judges: Zimmerman
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.