Watch Your Language with Reservation of Rents/Other Rights in Ohio Deeds

(Supreme Court of Ohio in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3196 reaffirms time-tested rule that absent an express reservation in a deed, a covenant to pay rent runs with the land)

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq. - Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

-A Watch Your Language Series Article-

 

As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will typically uphold commercial document provisions unless they are contrary to public policy or statutory law, or the subject of a mutual mistake.

Because of this judicial deference to “plain language” within real estate and other documents, and the fact that courts, as a general rule will not look outside the four corners of a document (to consider extrinsic evidence of intent) if the language is unambiguous (sometimes referred to as the “Four Corners Rule”), you must “watch your language, and say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.” And, more often than not, what a judge decides in these cases is not what at least one of the parties meant.

The Ohio Supreme Court in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3196 recently espoused this basic tenet of Ohio law with regard to deeds, when it held that: 1) absent an express reservation in a deed conveying property, a covenant to pay rent runs with the land; and 2) “subject to” language in a deed, without more does not constitute an express reservation.

Background/Facts of LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties.

As succinctly stated by the Ohio Supreme Court in LRC Realty, “This case concerns the leased land beneath a cell tower and the right to receive rental payments from the tower’s owner following the transfer of the underlying property.”

The specific facts of the case are as follows:

In 1994, B.E.B. Properties (“B.E.B.”) leased a portion of its three-acre commercial property in Chardon, Ohio to Northern Ohio Cellular Telephone Company (now, “New Par”) and also granted New Par an easement on that same property. Both the lease and the easement were subsequently recorded and a cellular tower was later built on the site.

Between 1995 and 2013, there were three (3) successive sales of the property. The third sale, which occurred in 2013 was to appellant, LRC Realty, Inc. (“LRC”).  Not soon after the first sale of the property, two of the partners of appellee B.E.B. (a general partnership) transferred their interest in the partnership to the third partner and his wife, Bruce and Sheila Bird (the “Birds”). The Birds assumed that the rents from the cell tower lease were assigned to them (notwithstanding the sale of the property), and in fact, New Par sent its rents to the Birds, until 2013 when LRC inquired as to its rights to the rents, and initiated litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that it was so entitled to such rent.

The trial court held for the plaintiffs and ordered the Birds to pay the owner of the property prior to LRC, the rents from 2007 to 2013, and to pay LRC the rents the Birds received in 2013, and thereafter. The Birds appealed the trial court’s decision to the 11^th District Court of Appeals of Ohio, and the 11^th District reversed that decision. Thereafter, the appellants appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Analysis of LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties.

The deed for the first transfer of the property was the key to this case (at all court levels) and provided as follows: “B.E.B. Properties … the said Grantor, does for its self and its successors and assigns, covenant with … Grantees … that it will warrant and defend said premises …against all lawful claims and demands whatsoever, “such premises further to be subject to the specific encumbrances on the premises as set forth above.”

The trial court found for the plaintiffs based on long standing Ohio law, that absent a reservation in a deed conveying property, the right to receive rents runs with the land; and it found no specific words of reservation in the deed in question. The Eleventh District believed that the “specific encumbrances on the premises as set forth above” language was a reference to the previously recorded lease and easement and therefore, such language should be interpreted as a reservation of the right to receive future rental payments under the lease.

The Supreme Court of Ohio in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties boiled the case down to two issues: (1) whether the general law in Ohio still provides that absent an express reservation in a deed conveying property, the right to receive rents runs with the land; and (2) whether or not language in a deed indicating that the property being conveyed is “subject to” a recorded lease agreement and easement constitutes such an express reservation.

Citing common law as far back as 1885, and statutory law enacted in 1965 (Ohio Revised Code Section 5302.04), the Ohio Supreme Court answered the first issue in the affirmative, namely that a covenant in a lease to pay rent “runs with the land” (meaning the right to receive rents would ordinarily follow the legal title transferred by deed, and belong to the grantee), absent a specific provision in the deed, reserving in grantor the right to receive such rental payments.

 In answering the second issue in the negative (that the “subject to” language in the deed at issue did not constitute an express reservation of rents), the Ohio Supreme Court simply acknowledged and applied the “Four Corners Rule.”  As explained by the court, “When interpreting a deed, the primary goal of this court is to give effect to the intentions of the parties [and the] best way to do that is to look at the words found within the four corners of the deed itself and to adhere to the plain language used there.”

Applying this rule of law to the deed at issue, the court concluded that “no words of reservation appear on the face of the deed in connection with the words ‘rent’ or ‘rental payments,’ and accordingly, B.E.B. Properties did not reserve the right to receive such rent when it conveyed the property.“  Without such a reservation, the court explained that “B.E.B’s subsequent assignment of that [rental] interest to the Birds was thus ineffective as it is impossible to assign an interest that one does not possess.”

  

What is the moral of this story? Watch your language, and say what you mean precisely, or a judge will tell you what you meant. The general, “Four Corners Rule” re: judicial deference to the written word in commercial documents, still… rules. Consequently, use the “magic” words- “reserve,” “reserving,” or “reservation” (vs. “subject to”) if your intent is to reserve rents or other rights in the grantor.   That way, there is nothing left open to interpretation. Make the plain language, plain as day, and you won’t need your day…in court.

Who Is the “Prevailing Party” When Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Multiple Count, Landlord-Tenant Litigation?

(Watch your Language [with Attorneys’ Fees Provisions] & Say What You Mean, Precisely or a Judge Will Tell You What You Meant #14)

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq.-Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

Watch Your Language. As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will uphold language in commercial agreements, unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. They traditionally presume that commercial parties are on more of an equal playing field and are more sophisticated concerning commercial transactions (such as commercial real estate deals), since both parties will usually have attorneys to review their documents. Because of this judicial deference to commercial language, you must, “say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.” Failure to follow this axiom left the landlord in Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC, 2019-Ohio-3091 (8^th Dist. Ct. of Appeals, Cuyahoga County) with a bill for its tenant’s attorneys’ fees in excess of the landlord’s claims for damages.

Attorneys’ Fees in General.  Ohio courts follow the so-called “American Rule,” which requires that each party involved in litigation pay his or her own attorneys’ fees.  There are, however three well-recognized exceptions to this rule: (1) where statutory provisions specifically provide that a prevailing party may recover attorneys’ fees; (2) where there has been a finding of bad faith; and (3) where the contract between the parties provides for it (sometimes referred to as “fee shifting”).

So called fee shifting or attorneys’ fees provisions are often drafted in general terms, with the parties assuming that their intent is clear. Frequent language calls for “reasonable attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.” Who is the prevailing party, however, when there are multiple counts, with one party prevailing on some counts and the other party prevailing on others? Does an award of “reasonable” fees mean that a prevailing party on one count is only entitled to fees related to that one count? The relatively recent case of Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC reinforces the need to be specific and leave as little as possible to “interpretive chance.”

Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC – (The Facts). The facts of the “Simbo” case are simple enough (the law, not so much). In December, 2012, Simbo Properties, Inc. (“Simbo”) and M8 Realty, LLC (“M8”) entered into a written lease pursuant to which Simbo leased commercial real property to M8.    The initial term of their lease agreement was for eighteen (18) months.   Simbo claimed that M8 violated several provisions of the lease resulting in the filing by Simbo of a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”).  Simbo filed a four-count complaint against M8 seeking the following:  Count 1 — rent (in excess of $150,000); Count 2 — real estate taxes ($32,158.34); Count 3 — property damage (in excess of $30,000 for flag pole and storm sewer damage); and Count 4 — breach of other pertinent lease provisions. M8 filed a counterclaim for damages claimed by M8. In pre-trial motions, M8 prevailed on Count 4 by virtue of the trial court granting M8’s motion for summary judgement. Of the remaining issues before the trial court, Simbo prevailed on Count 2, on part of Count 3 and on M8’s counterclaim. M8 prevailed upon Count 1 and part of Count 3.

After the judgement was rendered, both parties filed post-trial motions, including claims for attorneys’ fees.  Simbo and M8 based their claims for attorneys’ fees on the fact that they each prevailed upon at least part of the litigation, and their lease agreement contained a fee shifting  provision directing legal fees be awarded to the prevailing party of a lawsuit. Specifically, Section 37 of the Simbo/M8 lease agreement provides:  “If a lawsuit is filed with respect to this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

On the issue of the award of attorneys’ fees under the lease, the trial court determined that M8 was the “prevailing party” since it won the “main issue” in the lawsuit (Count 1) and, as a result was entitled to all of its attorneys’ fees, as provided in the lease agreement.

Simbo then filed an appeal of the $238,335.73 award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to M8 and also challenged other aspects of the trial court’s rulings. Simbo argued that since it prevailed on two counts of the complaint and M8’s counterclaim, it should be considered the “prevailing party”

under the lease agreement’s fee-shifting provision. 

Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC – (Case Analysis). On appeal, the 8^th District Court of Appeals first acknowledged that there were complications inherent in the trial court’s attorneys’ fees award because:  (1) the term “prevailing party” was not defined within the lease agreement; and (2) a determination of whether Simbo or M8 is the “prevailing party” was also complicated by a jury verdict in favor of both parties.

Nonetheless, the 8^th District Court of Appeals in Simbo easily resolved the complications by virtue of precedent (prior court rulings on point) established in the 10^th District Court of Appeals case, EAC Properties LLC v Brightwell (2014-Ohio-2078). EAC Properties was a landlord-tenant case on similar facts as Simbo, whereby the landlord (EAC Properties) brought suit against its tenant, Brightwell re: $30,000 of unpaid, additional rent (deemed the “primary claim” by the EAC court because it was the largest dollar amount claimed) and $3,000 of unpaid utilities. The court in EAC Properties determined that the landlord’s primary claim for additional rent failed, and because the landlord did not prevail on that primary issue, it was not entitled to collect any attorneys’ fees under the lease agreement.

Applying what it termed EAC’s’ “main issue standard,” the court of appeals in Simbo easily determined M8 to be the “prevailing party” because it received a jury verdict on the main issue of the case; the count (Count 1) that represented the largest dollar amount, as well as being the count that counsel for M8 spent the largest percentage of time defending.

The court in Simbo did acknowledge that there is a “some relief” (vs “main issue”) standard that has been applied to define a “prevailing party” in connection with statutory claims for attorneys’ fees such as is authorized in consumer protection and civil rights laws. However, the Simbo court did not find the “some relief standard” applicable in a contractual case like Simbo, reasoning that “While public policy in consumer protection and civil rights litigation supports a broader interpretation of ‘prevailing party’, no similar need exists in negotiated commercial fee-shifting clauses between sophisticated parties… represented by counsel[who] knowingly and willingly negotiated a commercial lease agreement.”

As if to reinforce our moral of the story below, the court of appeals in Simbo also reasoned that: “If the parties had desired to define “prevailing party,” e.g., as the party that prevails on the most counts in the litigation, Simbo and M8 could have drafted that provision into the lease… or [could have] defined the term “prevailing party,” but chose not to do so.  [Accordingly], we must follow the intent of the parties and apply the terms of the lease agreement.” In other words, the parties did not say what they meant, precisely, so the judge told them what they meant.

Since the court of appeals in Simbo determined that the parties intended to define “prevailing party” as the party that prevailed upon the main issue of the case, then such party should only be able to collect its attorneys’ fees with respect to the main issue. Right? That was the landlord’s argument. Simbo argued that M8 should recover only those attorneys’ fees attributable to Count 1, the count on which M8 prevailed at the trial court.  The court of appeals in Simbo, however upheld the trial court’s award of M8’s total legal fees incurred with respect to all of the counts of the litigation, including the counts the landlord prevailed upon. The Simbo court explained that claims that involve common facts or legal theories are too difficult to divide as to the time and hours spent on litigating the individual claims.  Accordingly, the court of appeals in Simbo held that “[W]here multiple claims are rooted in the same allegations, facts, discovery, and legal arguments, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees for the time spent on [all of] the claims.”

What is the moral of this story?  “Say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will tell you what you meant.” Clearly, the landlord in Simbo did not intend to pay more in legal fees than it had in claims, especially when it prevailed on some of those claims. Nevertheless, since there was no definition of “prevailing party” in the lease, the court, in effect found one. 

Listen to what judges are saying with regard to interpreting leases and other commercial contracts: “When the language of a written contract is clear, a court may look no further than the writing itself to find the intent of the parties” [So, be clear]. Define “prevailing party” in commercial fee shifting provisions; define “reasonable fees” or consider a “floor” or “ceiling.” Also, be clear as to whether or not your intent is to be reimbursed for legal fees after a default, whether or not it ends up in litigation.

In other words, the “well-known and established principle of contract interpretation is that [c]ontracts are to be interpreted so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced or not evidenced by the contract language” [So, evidence your intent in your documents].

Boilerplate Language Upheld in Ohio Storage Lease

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq.-Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

boil•er•plate (boi l r-pl t ) n.

1. A steel plate used in making the shells of steam boilers.
2. Inconsequential, formulaic, or stereotypical language: The new provisions of the lease renewal were merely boilerplate.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 

The first type of “boilerplate” defined above is pretty tough stuff. It can be up to twelve (12) inches thick and stop arrows, Greek fire and low caliber ammunition. Tough, one-sided contract and lease language is also referred to by many as “boilerplate”. What is amazing to me is how many tenants, landlords, brokers and dictionary writers believe such language is inconsequential or unenforceable, and how many do not worry about such language because they deem it “merely boilerplate.”

Notwithstanding the above definition, this author would like to caution you to worry, if you ever find yourself on the “wrong side of the boilerplate.” Contrary to “Mr. Heritage’s” beliefs, odds are that boilerplate (at least in a commercial lease/contract) will most likely be enforceable unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. Judges assume (rightly or wrongly) that commercial tenants and landlords are on equal footing with equal sophistication in business and lease matters. They believe commercial parties say what they mean and mean what they say in their contracts. Ohio court decisions regarding commercial leases are replete with language like the following: “when reviewing lease provisions, a court is to presume that the intent of the parties is in the language they used, and if the contract is clear and unambiguous, then we must follow the contract’s expressed terms and must not go beyond the plain language of the contract.” Langfan v. Carlton Gardens, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2863. Accordingly, self-help provisions, landlord disclaimers of the duty to mitigate damages, warrants of attorney to confess judgement and disclaimers of warranties are just a few examples of boilerplate language upheld in commercial leases in Ohio.

The primary exception to the general enforceability of boilerplate language in Ohio is Ohio’s Landlord-Tenant Act (ORC Chapter 5301 et. seq.), which governs Ohio residential leases. Specifically, Section 5321.13 (d) of such Act provides that “No agreement by a tenant to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law or to indemnify the landlord for that liability or its related costs shall be recognized in any rental agreement or in any other agreement between a landlord and tenant.” Awards of attorney fees and warrants of attorney to confess judgment are also prohibited in residential leases. The Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act was enacted to protect residential tenants who are often in an unequal bargaining position from their landlords, and have a lot more to lose (e.g., their homes).

What about boilerplate language in storage unit leases? Often, such units are utilized to store beds, refrigerators and other furniture and appliances typically found in a residence. Do storage unit tenants have the same protection residential tenants have?

What if such boilerplate language in a storage unit lease goes so far as 1) disclaiming landlord liability (for patent and latent defects, failure  to repair and express and implied warranties); 2) imposing minimal, liquidated damages; and 3) requiring the tenant to indemnify landlord? That’s just inconsequential boilerplate, right Mr. Heritage? 

Not according to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in the recent case of Hopkins v. Car Go Self Storage,2019-Ohio-1793.

In Hopkins, the tenant-appellant entered into a lease agreement with appellee, “Car Go Self Storage” to store her personal belongings, including furniture, in appellee’s storage facility. Appellant testified in court that the facility was dry when the items were moved in, but when such items were retrieved, they were damp and covered with mold. Apparently there was a water leak that allowed water into the unit, causing the mold. Appellant sued appellee for breach of contract, negligence and conversion. The trial court held for appellee on all counts, and appellant appealed.

The court of appeals in Hopkins affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court held that the negligence claim was properly dismissed because it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The conversion claim was properly dismissed because appellant admitted she was not prevented from recovering her property.

Regarding the contract claim, appellant claimed that her contract contained an implied warranty that the unit was fit and habitable for storage of property, and that such warranty was breached by the landlord. The 10^th District Court of Appeals apparently agreed with appellant that the elements establishing an implied warranty had been met. However, according to the court, such warranty was disclaimed by the landlord’s exculpatory clause that included a broad, but unambiguous release of liability for damage to property; and a clear, express waiver of implied warranties. Citing precedent (similar cases on point), the court in Hopkins simply applied the “general rule,” namely, that “exculpatory causes in lease agreements are generally valid absent a showing of ambiguity or unconscionability” and “if the court can determine intent from the plain [albeit exculpatory] language of the contract, then the court must apply that language as written and refrain from further contract interpretation.”

It is important to note that the Hopkins court did not preclude future challenges to a  storage lease, as unconscionable. Since appellant did not challenge her lease as unconscionability, however, the court in Hopkins simply concluded that “the court cannot address an argument that was not raised.”

So, what is the moral of this story? All language in a  lease is of consequence; boilerplate or not. The best weapon against boilerplate language is the delete key. Negotiate away boilerplate language before signing the lease. Afterwards, odds are you will be no more successful shooting holes through boilerplate language in court, as you would be shooting holes through the 12- inch- thick steel kind of boilerplate.

U.S. Supreme Court holds that Enforcers of Security Interests in Nonjudicial Foreclosures are not “Debt Collectors” under Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq. - Senior Counsel- Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

(A Watch Your Language Series Article)

As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will uphold language in commercial agreements, unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. Because of this judicial deference to commercial language, you must “say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.”

Saying what you mean, precisely, is as important in drafting statutes and ordinances as it is in commercial agreements. As a general rule, courts will also uphold clear and unambiguous statutory language. “Statutes clear in their terms need no interpretation; they simply need application. If the …language of a statute reveals … a meaning which is clear, unequivocal and definite… the statute must be applied accordingly." Provident Bank v. Wood (1973). Alternatively, ambiguous statutes will be interpreted by judges who may or may not uphold the meaning intended by the legislative authority who drafted such statutes.

In the recent case of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 138 S. Ct. 2710 (2018), the United States Supreme Court determined that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or the “Act”) was not clear and unequivocal, and accordingly, the court decided what Congress meant by the term “debt collector.”

The facts of the case are simple enough; the law, not so much.

Facts of the Case

In 2007, Dennis Obduskey (the petitioner) bought a home in Colorado with a $329,940 loan secured by a mortgage on the property. Approximately two years later, Mr. Obduskey defaulted on the loan. In 2014, Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., the servicer for the lender hired a law firm, McCarthy & Holthus LLP (the respondent) to act as its agent in carrying out a nonjudicial foreclosure.

McCarthy first mailed Mr. Obduskey a letter that stated McCarthy had been instructed to commence foreclosure against the property, disclosed the amount past due and outstanding on the loan and identified the creditor. Mr. Obduskey responded with a letter disputing the amount of the debt, and requesting written verification of the debt in accordance with §1692g(b) of the FDCPA. McCarthy did not provide any such verification. Instead, the law firm initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure action in accordance with Colorado state law.  

Mr. Obduskey then filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the McCarthy law firm had violated the FDCPA by failing to comply with the verification procedure and other provisions and procedures required by the Act. The federal district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the law firm was not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Act, so the verification procedure and other relevant Act requirements did not apply. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Mr. Obduskey then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari (an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court).

Applicable Law

To better understand the Obduskey decision, a quick primer on nonjudicial foreclosures and the Act is in order.

Nonjudicial foreclosure. As well explained by the court in Obduskey: “When a person buys a home, he or she usually borrows money from a lending institution, such as a bank. The resulting debt is backed up by a ‘mortgage’—a security interest in the property designed to protect the creditor’s investment… The loan likely requires the homeowner to make monthly payments. And if the homeowner defaults, the mortgage entitles the creditor to pursue foreclosure, which is ‘the process in which property securing a mortgage is sold to pay off the loan balance due’… Every state provides some form of judicial foreclosure: a legal action initiated by a creditor in which a court supervises the sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds. These procedures offer various protections for homeowners, such as the right to notice and to protest the amount a creditor says is owed...About half the States also provide for what is known as nonjudicial foreclosure, where notice to the parties and sale of the property occur outside court supervision.” Ohio is not one of the states that permits nonjudicial foreclosures.

The FDCPA- The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is the main federal law that governs debt collection practices. Generally, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using abusive, unfair or deceptive practices to collect debts. Specifically, the Act imposes a multitude of requirements on “debt collectors.” For example, pursuant to §1692d of the Act, debt collectors may not use or threaten violence, or make repetitive phone calls. Nor (pursuant to §1692e of the Act) can debt collectors make false, deceptive or misleading representations in connection with a debt, like misstating a debt’s “character, amount, or legal status.” And, pursuant to §1692g(b) of the Act, if a consumer disputes the amount of a debt, a debt collector must cease collection until it “obtains verification of the debt” and mails a copy of such verification to the debtor.

There is also a separate subsection of the Act (§1692f(6)), that prohibits a debt collector from: “Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if— (A) there is no present right to possession of the property . . . ; (B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or (C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.”

What is a “debt collector” for purposes of the Act?  Pursuant to §1692a(6) of the Act , a “debt collector” is “any person . . . in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts.” This definition, however, goes on to say that “[f]or the purpose of section 1692f(6)…the term [debt collector] also includes any person . . . in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.”

The Issue before the Court: The issue faced by the court in Obduskey was essentially; what did Congress mean by enacting, in effect, a two-part definition of “debt collector” in the Act. In other words, does the “2^nd part of the definition” (the last sentence) mean that one principally involved in the enforcement of security interests is not a debt collector (except regarding section 1692f(6) of the Act)? If so, numerous other provisions of the Act, like the verification requirement would not apply to the McCarthy law firm. Or, does the 2^nd part of the definition simply reinforce the fact that those principally involved in the enforcement of security interests are subject to §1692f(6), in addition to the Act’s other provisions?

Holding/Court Analysis of Obduskey: The United States Supreme Court in Obduskey held that a security interest enforcer engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, except for the limited purpose of §1692f(6) of the Act. In other words, the vast majority of the Act does not apply to nonjudicial foreclosures.

Most decisive and important to the court was the text of the Act itself. The court interpreted the first part of the Act’s definition of debt collector as the Act’s “primary definition,” and the last sentence of the definition as the “limited purpose” part of the definition. The court in Obduskey then reasoned that if security interest enforcers were meant to be included in the primary definition, there would have been no need for the addition of a limited purpose definition that specifically addresses security interest enforcers (in nonjudicial foreclosures).

As explained in the case syllabus, “The limited purpose definition says that “[f]or the purpose of Section 1692f(6)” a debt collector ‘also includes’ a business, like McCarthy, ‘the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.’ §1692a(6) (emphasis added). This phrase, particularly the word ‘also,’ strongly suggests that security interest enforcers do not fall within the scope of the primary definition. If they did, the limited purpose definition would be superfluous.”

The court also pointed out that its interpretation is supported by legislative history, which suggests that “the Act’s present language was the product of a compromise between competing versions of the bill, one which would have totally excluded security-interest enforcement from the Act, and another which would have treated it like ordinary debt collection.”

Mr. Obduskey made a number of legal arguments which were summarily dismissed by the court. He also expressed a “floodgates argument” claiming that the court’s decision will open a loophole, permitting creditors and their agents to engage in a host of abusive practices. The court seemed concerned enough about this argument to issue a warning, by stating, “This is not to suggest that pursuing nonjudicial foreclosure is a license to engage in abusive debt collection practices.” However, the Court was not swayed enough to change its decision. In fact, the court countered that it would not be the role of the Supreme Court of the United’s States to curtail any collateral damage from its decision. Rather, “states can…guard against such practices”, and “Congress may choose to expand the reach of the FDCPA.”  According to the court, the United States Supreme Court’s only job is to “enforce the statute that Congress enacted.”

Moral of the Story

For legislators, “say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.” And, remember that judges do not always get it right.  Even Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in Obduskey recognized this adage by stating: “this is a close case, and today’s opinion does not prevent Congress from clarifying this statute if we have gotten it wrong.”

For debt collectors, heed the court’s warning (“enforcing a security interest does not grant an actor blanket immunity from the mandates of the Act”), rather than focus on its holding. Also keep in mind that there is no penalty for adhering to consumer protection statutes that may not be applicable, even if you are an attorney or other security interest enforcer involved in a nonjudicial foreclosure. What would be the harm, for example in using the “verification of the debt language” called for in the Act, when there is no requirement to do so? Remember that debt collection protections are also governed at the state and local level, in spite of a limited loophole in the FDCPA.

If you are an enforcer of a security interest in a judicial foreclosure (required in Ohio and other states), note that the holding of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP does not apply to you. As clearly stated by the court in Obduskey, “Whether those who judicially enforce mortgages fall within the scope of the primary definition [of “debt collector”] is a question we can leave for another day…for here we consider nonjudicial foreclosure.” In other words, since enforcers of security interests in judicial foreclosures were not deemed excluded from the Act’s definition of “debt collector”, to be prudent, you should consider yourself included in the definition, and consequently, subject to all provisions of the Act.

Electronically Signed Email Exchange May Constitute Enforceable Real Estate Contract

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq. - Senior Counsel- Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

(A Watch Your Language Series Article)

(Watch your language when creating contracts [and when not intending to create a contract])

As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will typically uphold commercial document provisions unless they are contrary to public policy or statutory law, or the subject of a mutual mistake. Courts traditionally presume that commercial parties are on more of an equal playing field and are more sophisticated concerning commercial transactions, since both parties will usually have attorneys to review their documents. More and more, parties to residential real estate contracts are being held to the same standard governing commercial transactions. Because courts often defer to the specific language of real estate documents, unintended results are often the norm for parties who do not carefully draft their documents.

 Because of this judicial deference to “plain language” within real estate and other documents, and the fact that courts, as a general rule will not look outside the four corners of a document (to consider extrinsic evidence of intent) if the language is unambiguous, you must “watch your language, and say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.”

This watch your language precept is just as (if not more) important in cases determining whether or not a contract has been created, than it is in cases determining the meaning of language within a legally created contract. The Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District of Ohio was recently faced with this very issue in Mezher v. Schrand, 2018-Ohio-3787.

Background of Mezher v. Schrand.

This case involves the alleged sale of a high-end residential property in Mt. Adams, Ohio owned by defendants-appellees Karri and Jeff Schrand (“Seller[s]”). Plaintiffs-appellants Joseph and Mike Mezher (“Buyer[s]”) argued that the Sellers agreed by a series of email exchanges (electronically signed) to sell their home to the Buyers and that the Sellers breached that agreement. The Sellers argued that no agreement existed because of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.

The email exchange between the Buyers and the Sellers in Mezher started with both parties going back and forth on price. These introductory emails contained a general description of the property (address) and clearly identified the parties. The last three emails in the exchange were as follows:

Buyer (Sept 29, 2017): “However, will split it [price difference] again with you because I want to be flexible. I am good at $982,500 for a purchase price. Based on inception [sic] and customary closing, we can get a simple contract drafted Monday and have it signed by us Tuesday with the earnest money cashier check to you upon acceptance of contract by Tuesday. Please let me know, Mike[.]”

Seller (Sept 30, 2017): “We accept.”

Buyer (Sept 30, 2017):  “Great, I agree too.”

When the parties met on October 5, 2017, an argument ensued, and the Sellers refused to sign a written form contract the Buyers brought with them. The Buyers then filed a complaint against Sellers, requesting specific performance of the real estate contract allegedly established by e-mail exchange. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sellers, finding that the September 29-30 email exchange between the parties did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds, because the emails did not describe the subject property with particularity. The Buyers then appealed to the Hamilton County Court of Appeals.

What is the Statute of Frauds?

In Ohio (and most other jurisdictions), the “Statute of Frauds” (originating from a 1619 Act of Parliament) basically establishes that certain contracts must be memorialized in a signed writing to be enforceable. Specifically, Ohio’s Statute of Frauds (ORC §1335.05) provides, in pertinent part that: “no action shall be brought …upon a contract or sale of lands… or interest in or concerning them,… unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith...”. There are limited, “equitable” exceptions to the rule, such as “part performance”, “unjust enrichment” and “promissory estoppel” that courts have imposed in order to avoid unfair legal remedies. See “An Oral Contract to Buy Real Estate is not Worth the Paper it is not Written on” — Ohio Real Estate Blog, April 30, 2010.

Does an email or other electronic form of writing satisfy the Statute of Frauds?

Yes. While not contemplated in 1619, the “electronic age of contract formation” has been with us in Ohio since the turn of the century. Pursuant to ORC §1306.06 (C)-(D), if a law requires a record and/or signature to be in writing, an electronic record and/or signature satisfies the law. To erase any doubt with respect to contracts, ORC §1306.06 (B) provides: “A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.”

What writing is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds?

More perplexing than whether or not a writing exists, is the question of what writing is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The general law in Ohio is that in order for a real estate contract to comply with the Statute of Frauds, it is necessary that the signed contract or memorandum: (1) identify the subject matter; (2) establish that a contract has been made (both parties to the contract must assent to its terms and have a “meeting of the minds” as to those terms); and (3) state the essential terms with reasonable certainty.

What are the essential terms of a real estate contract?

In Ohio, courts have identified the essential terms of a real estate contract as: “the identity of the parties to be bound; the subject matter of the contract; consideration; a quantity term and a price term”. What is not essential? According to recent Ohio court decisions, a written contract for the sale of land need not include the character of the deed to the executed, specify who should pay taxes on the sale or state whether a mortgage must be given to secure the purchase money in order for the contract to still comply with the Statute of Frauds. Additionally, the contract does not violate the Statute of Frauds because the writing does not state a specific date of performance (i.e. closing date) or because of the failure to designate the nature of the interest being conveyed.

Analysis of Mezher v. Schrand.

The court of appeals in Mezher reversed the trial court’s decision, easily concluding that the emails at issue did in fact describe the subject property with particularity. While a list of personal property (appliances, window treatments…) was not specified, the address of the real estate was embedded within the subject line of each email in the exchange and all the other essential terms could be found in the body of the emails. According to the appellate court in Mezher, a list of ancillary personal property is clearly a non-essential term in a contract for the sale of real property.

The appellate court, however, also remanded the case back to the trial court on the issue of whether or not a “meeting of the minds” occurred within the emails vs simply a price negotiation to be followed up by a more complete written contract. Recall that the Mezher email exchange contemplated that the parties would sign a formal document shortly after the email exchange.

As explained by the court of appeals in Mezher, “Given the circumstances surrounding the parties’ email exchange and later discussions, including that other terms of the sale had yet to be agreed upon, an issue of fact exists as to whether the parties had a present intention to be bound at the time of the email exchange, or whether the parties did not intend to be bound until execution of the more formal contract.”

The Mezher court did cite precedent establishing that an agreement can be specifically enforced even where the parties contemplated execution of a later, formal written document, so long as the parties (at the time of the “informal contract”) have manifested an intent to be bound and their intentions are sufficiently definite. The determination of intent, however would be a matter for the trier of fact, not the court of appeals.

What is the moral of this story?

First, “say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will tell you what you meant.” The general rule in Ohio is that when the parties have clearly agreed to the “critical terms” of a real estate transaction, the court may determine on its own the meaning of any ambiguous or uncertain terms. While courts will typically factor in to their decisions, what they believe the parties’ mutual understanding to be, more often than not, a court’s determination does not match up with a party's actual understanding and someone goes home from court unhappy.

Second, there is no hard and fast rule or finite list as to what is and what is not an “essential” term of a real estate contract. While we know that price, identification of the parties and property description are essential terms, and that the closing date and description of personal property are non- essential terms, there are limitless provisions that could be deemed essential by a court of law, the absence of which could render the contract unenforceable. In other words, don’t worry about the number of pages in your contracts, worry about what is reflected within the pages.

Third, the enforceability of a real estate contract containing essential terms depends… on whether the parties have manifested an intention to be bound by such terms and whether these intentions are sufficiently definite to be specifically enforced. Unless absolutely clear in the “contract”, however, the intent of the parties will be based on a fact finder’s (judge or jury’s) evaluation of not only the language itself, but the circumstances surrounding the language. The fact finder certainly will not have a better idea of the parties’ intentions than the parties themselves, but will have the power to nonetheless, make the call. In other words, if you don’t want your preliminary negotiation or letter of intent to be construed as a final contract, spell that out, clearly and definitively. It is no guarantee, but a clear statement that the document “is not intended to be binding” will always be evidence of non-intent to create a binding contract.

Finally, get with the times. These days, contracts can be created in cyberspace, as easily as they can be on a written document entitled “contract.” If you don’t want your emails to be binding contracts, don’t sign them, or better yet, don’t write them in the first place.