Britton v. Gibbs Associates, 06ca34 (1-18-2008)
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fifth Third Bank v. Rose, 07ca8 (7-29-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Chilli Assocs., Ltd. v. Denti Restaurants, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
- Ibold v. Wharton (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Orange Technologies, L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Office of Scioto Twp. Zoning Inspector v. Puckett (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
- Myers v. Wild Wilderness Raceway, L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
- Jones v. Burgess, 07ca37 (12-3-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Huspen v. Cooper, 07ca2987 (9-9-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} Wayne Johnson moved the mobile home. After he moved the first half of the home to a lot in Lynchburg, lightning struck it and caused heavy damage. Britton made a claim under the Progressive policy. Progressive denied the claim.
{¶ 4} Britton, Nicholas, Jeffrey Goldie, and Debra Goldie filed a complaint for breach of contract and requested damages, including attorney fees, against Gibbs, Progressive, Wayne Johnson, Debbie Johnson, and various John Doe defendants. Eventually, the case went to trial. The court granted Progressive a directed verdict on the ground that the "in transit" exclusion applied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against Gibbs in the amount of $30,313, with interest at a rate of six percent per annum. The court did not dispose of the plaintiffs' request in their complaint for attorney fees.
{¶ 5} On appeal, Gibbs asserts nine assignments of error and Britton asserts two assignments of error
{¶ 7} "An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is * * * [a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment" or "[a]n order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding[.]" R.C.
{¶ 8} Here, the plaintiffs sought damages for a breach of a contract. A cause of action for breach of contract, seeking damages, is recognized at common law, and thus, is not a special proceeding. See, e.g.,Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters v. McMarty, Trumbull App. No. 2005-T-0063,
{¶ 9} An order adjudicating "one or more but fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties must meet the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 10} Here, only one claim or remedy is involved, i.e., damages for breach of contract. Therefore, Civ.R. 54(B) does not apply.
{¶ 11} This court has continuously held that "[a] determination of liability without a determination of damages is not a final appealable order because damages are part of a claim for relief, rather than a separate claim in and of themselves." Shelton v. Eagles Foe Aerie2232 (Feb. 15, 2000), Adams App. No. 99CA678, citing Horner v. ToledoHospital (1993),
{¶ 12} Therefore, because the plaintiffs' prayer for attorney fees remains unresolved, we find that the trial court did not resolve the entire claim. Consequently, Gibbs and Britton did not appeal final appealable orders.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
*Page 6APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Highland County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
*Page 1Harsha, J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.