Build On This!

In Al Barto v. Ben D. Imhoff, Inc. (Dec. 11, 2006), 9th Dist. No. 06CA0025, 2006-Ohio-6479, the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion to stay pending arbitration. Barto was the subcontractor (“Sub”) in privity of contract with the general contractor, Ben D. Imhoff, Inc. (“GC”). After a dispute arose, the Sub was terminated and filed a lawsuit seeking payment for services rendered. The GC and project Owner filed a motion to stay pending arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in the GC’s contract with the Owner and a provision in the Subcontract providing that “Contractor shall have the same legal rights and privileges against the Subcontractor herein as the Owner has against the Contractor.” The GC argued that the Subcontract incorporated the arbitration clause by using this language.

The trial court disagreed, holding that a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate a matter when it has not agreed to do so. The Subcontract expressly incorporated only the “specifications, drawings, schedules and addendas prepared by Mitchell Associates, Inc.” into the Subcontract. The parties could have easily incorporated the arbitration provision, all obligations, or even the entirety of the GC’s contract with the Owner, but did not. The Sub never specifically agreed to arbitrate the dispute and the trial court correctly denied the motion to compel arbitration.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that there has been a surge in federal foreclosure filings this year. In 2003, only eight foreclosure cases were filed in federal court. This year, the number has grown to more than 350, due to the continued log-jam of foreclosures in state court. It is reported that the federal foreclosures are typically resolved in just three to six months, which is far quicker than most state court foreclosures. In order to file a foreclosure in federal court, the debt must total at least $75,000 and the parties must be from two different states.

The First District Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Cincinnati's denial of a landowner's application for a curb-cut to access a public road constitutes a taking of the owner's property for which the City must pay compensation. In State ex rel. Hilltop Basic v. Cincinnati, the Court followed established Ohio precedent, holding that "An owner of a parcel of real property has a right to access public streets or highways on which the land abuts." Even though the owner had access to the public road via a license agreement across a neighboring property, the City's refusal to allow access from the Owner's own land justified the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the City to begin eminent domain proceedings.

Governor Taft today signed into law Substitute House Bill 9, establishing an amended public records law to make state and local government officials more accountable. Click here to see the entire Bill.