breach of fiduciary duty claim in Ohio

2014Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 216 , 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988); Sudnick v. Klein, 11th Dist.

2014Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 216 , 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988); Sudnick v. Klein, 11th Dist.

2018Id. at 109, 548 N.E.2d 217 ; (internal citations omitted). {¶ 47} Ellis alleged a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Kashmiry on several grounds including: failure to include Ellis in business decisions, Kashmiry using corporate funds to pay for personal expenses, Kashmiry paying his wife $8,000 to $12,000 a year for no apparent business purpose, terminating Ellis' employment for refusal to take a reduction in compensation, and terminating Ellis without just cause. {¶ 48} These parties agreed that Ellis would become merely an employee of RKA-not a co-owner or manager.

2010Crosby v. Beam (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 105, 105 , 548 N.E.2d 217 , at paragraph two of the syllabus.

2017The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Id., citing Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 139 Ohio App.3d 231, 249 , 743 N.E.2d 484 (7th Dist.2000).

2017The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Id., citing Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 139 Ohio App.3d 231, 249 , 743 N.E.2d 484 (7th Dist.2000).

2025Thomas v. Chimera, 2023-Ohio-2132 (5th Dist.). {¶104} The trial court declined to give the jury instruction based on noneconomic damages for two reasons: (1) because it viewed the crux of the action as a breach of contract action rather than a tort action and (2) because there was not sufficient evidence for the issue to go to the jury without being speculative. {¶105} The only claim the jury found in favor of Jay on was the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Artie as the majority shareholder.

2024Id. {¶ 26} A fiduciary relationship is “a relationship ‘in which special confidence and trust is reposed in the integrity and fidelity of another and there is a resulting position of superiority or influence, acquired by virtue of this special trust.’ ” Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , ¶ 16, quoting In re Termination of Emp. of Pratt, 40 Ohio St.2d 107, 115 (1974).

2023Montgomery No. 24993, 2012-Ohio-4452, ¶ 87 .

2023(R. 1, complaint ¶ 167.) Ingram asserts that Ohio law establishes a fiduciary duty for “‘board members to act in the best interests [] of students, their parents, the taxpayers of the district, and the taxpayers of the state of Ohio.’” (Appellant’s brief p. 33, quoting In re Removal of Kuehnle, 161 Ohio App.3d 399 , 2005-Ohio-2373 , 830 N.E.2d 1173 .) Ingram further asserts that she brought this breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim as a parent and taxpayer.

2023(R. 1, complaint ¶ 167.) Ingram asserts that Ohio law establishes a fiduciary duty for “‘board members to act in the best interests [] of students, their parents, the taxpayers of the district, and the taxpayers of the state of Ohio.’” (Appellant’s brief p. 33, quoting In re Removal of Kuehnle, 161 Ohio App.3d 399 , 2005-Ohio-2373 , 830 N.E.2d 1173 .) Ingram further asserts that she brought this breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim as a parent and taxpayer.

2022(Brackets sic.) Manor Care, Inc. at 77 (In footnote 27, the “small number of jurisdictions” the court referred to were three cases that allowed a breach of a fiduciary duty claim brought by a nursing home resident to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment motion: Petre v. Living Ctrs.-East, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 808, 812 (E.D.La.1996) (allowing a breach of fiduciary duty claim to survive summary judgment, “The burden of proving that a fiduciary relationship existed in this case still lies with the plaintiff but such a factual determination in [sic] more properly handl

2022(Brackets sic.) Manor Care, Inc. at 77 (In footnote 27, the “small number of jurisdictions” the court referred to were three cases that allowed a breach of a fiduciary duty claim brought by a nursing home resident to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment motion: Petre v. Living Ctrs.-East, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 808, 812 (E.D.La.1996) (allowing a breach of fiduciary duty claim to survive summary judgment, “The burden of proving that a fiduciary relationship existed in this case still lies with the plaintiff but such a factual determination in [sic] more properly handl

2022The breach of fiduciary duty claim was encompassed in the negligence claim. {¶72} In Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 133 Ohio App.3d 651 , 729 N.E.2d 768 , (8th Dist. 1999), a nursing home alleged that a resident’s stepdaughter, who was the resident’s attorney-in-fact, had a fiduciary duty to the resident via the power of attorney and therefore also had a fiduciary duty to the nursing home to ensure that the resident’s nursing home bills were paid.

2022The breach of fiduciary duty claim was encompassed in the negligence claim. {¶72} In Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne, 133 Ohio App.3d 651 , 729 N.E.2d 768 , (8th Dist. 1999), a nursing home alleged that a resident’s stepdaughter, who was the resident’s attorney-in-fact, had a fiduciary duty to the resident via the power of attorney and therefore also had a fiduciary duty to the nursing home to ensure that the resident’s nursing home bills were paid.

2021Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 , 2018-Ohio-15 , 97 N.E.3d 458, ¶ 42 . {¶ 75} Since the purchase contract did not contain any express terms imposing a fiduciary duty, the claim in the Complaint for breach of fiduciary cannot be read as referring to anything other than a joint venture or partnership, which could have been either the Agreement (which implied a partnership or joint venture) or the oral agreement (which implied a joint venture), followed by part-performance. {¶ 76} Finally, contrary to Katz’s claims, Plaintiffs did mention in the trial court, in connection with the breach of fiduciary dut

2021Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 , 2018-Ohio-15 , 97 N.E.3d 458, ¶ 42 . {¶ 75} Since the purchase contract did not contain any express terms imposing a fiduciary duty, the claim in the Complaint for breach of fiduciary cannot be read as referring to anything other than a joint venture or partnership, which could have been either the Agreement (which implied a partnership or joint venture) or the oral agreement (which implied a joint venture), followed by part-performance. {¶ 76} Finally, contrary to Katz’s claims, Plaintiffs did mention in the trial court, in connection with the breach of fiduciary dut

2020Id., citing Newcomer v. Natl.

2020No. 12AP-60, 2012- Ohio-4420, ¶ 16, citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sessley, 188 Ohio App.3d 213 , 2010- Ohio-2902, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.). " 'When there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim necessarily fails.' " Cristino at ¶ 16, quoting Wells Fargo Bank at ¶ 36.

2018Montgomery No. 21873, 2007-Ohio-4209 , ¶ 49, 2007 WL 2343756 ( R.C. 1702.30 controls the condominium unit owners association board members' conduct and not a common law fiduciary obligation), in order to prove a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a duty arising from a fiduciary relationship; (2) a failure to observe the duty; and (3) an injury resulting proximately therefrom.

2017Lorain Nos. 05CA008689, 05CA008691, 2006-Ohio-764 , 2006 WL 401307 , ¶ 19 ("[A]n appellate court shall affirm a trial court's judgment that is legally correct on other grounds, that is, one that achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial."). {¶ 27} Lastly, with respect to Cohen's aiding, abetting, inducing or participating in breaches of fiduciary duties claim, we conclude that such a cause of action is not cognizable under Ohio law.

2017Celebrezze v. Gibbs , 60 Ohio St.3d 69 , 74, 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in empowering receiver to perform actions specifically enumerated in R.C. 2735.04 ). {¶ 19} The Association further argues that the trial court's appointment of a receiver to investigate and prosecute the breach of fiduciary duty claim "threatens to violate the receiver's core characteristic of neutrality * * * [b]y conditioning further payment to the receiver on the receiver's finding of a claim to ultimately pursue[;]" thus, "the receiver is placed in a position that creates th

2017Celebrezze v. Gibbs , 60 Ohio St.3d 69 , 74, 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in empowering receiver to perform actions specifically enumerated in R.C. 2735.04 ). {¶ 19} The Association further argues that the trial court's appointment of a receiver to investigate and prosecute the breach of fiduciary duty claim "threatens to violate the receiver's core characteristic of neutrality * * * [b]y conditioning further payment to the receiver on the receiver's finding of a claim to ultimately pursue[;]" thus, "the receiver is placed in a position that creates th

2017Trumbull No. 2015-T-0108, 2016-Ohio-5469 , 2016 WL 4426409 , ¶ 31. {¶ 26} We recognize that there are factual disputes on several issues in this case relating to Johnson's representation of Sericola.

2017Trumbull No. 2013-T-0110, 2014-Ohio-2890 , 2014 WL 2968593 , ¶ 14. {¶ 24} For Sericola's claims for Fraud and Misrepresentation, it was necessary to prove: "(a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, (b) which is material to the transaction at hand, (c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, (d) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it, (e) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and (f) a resulting