unliquidated claim in Ohio

2022Cuyahoga Nos. 81877 and 83083, 2003-Ohio-6474, ¶ 26 ; Berube v. Richardson, 2017-Ohio-1367 , 89 N.E.3d 85, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) (“Generally, proof of damages is required for an unliquidated claim, such as a claim of negligence.”), citing Buckeye Supply Co. v. N.E.

2022Drilling Co., 24 Ohio App.3d 134, 136 , 493 N.E.2d 964 (9th Dist.1985).

2022Drilling Co., 24 Ohio App.3d 134, 136 , 493 N.E.2d 964 (9th Dist.1985).

2003Further, the Schmelzer court, recognizing an absence of authority on the issue of assignability of a personal injury claim, limited its holding to state "that the mere existence of a survival statute which extends to administrators and its survivors the right to bring a wrongful death action for tort done to the person of the decedent, does not create by implication the right of free assignability of personal injury claims in tort." In re Schmelzer , 350 F. Supp. at 439 . {¶ 18} The most obvious problem with applying these cases as precedent here is the lack of a personal injury claim.

1985In Wilfong v. Batdorf (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 100, 103-104 , we observed that “* * * when a statute affects procedural rights, as opposed to substantive rights, the constitutional restraints on retrospective application are lifted. * * *” (Citations omitted.) This statute not only provides the method by which the interest shall be computed, it also creates the right to have the unliquidated claim made subject to interest if the reasons for the assessment as stated in the statute can be met.

1976The rule that interest cannot be paid on an unliquidated claim from the date of loss has been modified to allow interest where the amount of the loss can be ascertained by “mere computation or is subject to reasonably certain calculations by reference to well-established market values.” McKinney v. White Sewing Machine Corp. (1964), 95 Ohio Law Abs. 368 .

1976The rule that interest cannot be paid on an unliquidated claim from the date of loss has been modified to allow interest where the amount of the loss can be ascertained by “mere computation or is subject to reasonably certain calculations by reference to well-established market values.” McKinney v. White Sewing Machine Corp. (1964), 95 Ohio Law Abs. 368 .

1971In the case of Venzie Corp. v. Riethmiller, 103 Ohio App. 343 , the Court of Appeals for Franklin County decided : “Where a check is tendered in payment of a disputed claim, on the issue whether there has been an accord and satisfaction, it is immaterial whether the condition of payment is written on the check which is tendered or by a letter or other message or memorandum which is sent with the tendered payment, so long as it is clear to the offeree before acceptance that the payment is offered in full settlement of an unliquidated claim.” In the case at bar, the claim was not disputed and, m

1952So it is that the proof must be clear as to the making an acceptance of the condition that a sum of *90 fered in payment of an unliquidated claim should be accepted in full settlement thereof.” Applying this rule to the tender of a check, it is said in the same volume, at page 223, Section 22, that “in order that the acceptance of the check or remittance shall operate as a full discharge, the condition that it is to be accepted in full satisfaction of the pending claim or obligation must be expressly made or the circumstances must be such as to indicate clearly to the creditor that it is so se

1952So it is that the proof must be clear as to the making an acceptance of the condition that a sum of *90 fered in payment of an unliquidated claim should be accepted in full settlement thereof.” Applying this rule to the tender of a check, it is said in the same volume, at page 223, Section 22, that “in order that the acceptance of the check or remittance shall operate as a full discharge, the condition that it is to be accepted in full satisfaction of the pending claim or obligation must be expressly made or the circumstances must be such as to indicate clearly to the creditor that it is so se

1944However, the plaintiff contends that it did not learn of the death of Mr. Smith until after the executors had administered the estate and the remaining assets had been placed in the hands of the trustee; that the execu *567 tors had knowledge of the plaintiff’s claims; that they listed the claims in the schedule of debts which was filed within four months; that after the expiration of that period they made payments on the claim involved in the first case; and that the decision of this court in the case of Gerhold, Admx., v. Papathamasion, 130 Ohio St., 342 , 199 N. E., 353 ; 103 A. L.

1944However, the plaintiff contends that it did not learn of the death of Mr. Smith until after the executors had administered the estate and the remaining assets had been placed in the hands of the trustee; that the execu *567 tors had knowledge of the plaintiff’s claims; that they listed the claims in the schedule of debts which was filed within four months; that after the expiration of that period they made payments on the claim involved in the first case; and that the decision of this court in the case of Gerhold, Admx., v. Papathamasion, 130 Ohio St., 342 , 199 N. E., 353 ; 103 A. L.