Opinion
2023-00578AD
02-09-2024
GERALD BULLOCKS Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Gerald Bullocks ("plaintiff), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff related on June 27, 2023, at defendant's Trumbull Correctional Institution ("TCI"), defendant's employees, Investigator Wine and his partner, entered into an oral contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff states that the contract required plaintiff to assist Investigator Wine with an investigation into "Armark" employees. In exchange for plaintiff's cooperation and testimony against the employees, plaintiff was to be transferred to another level 3 security facility and that no conduct report would be issued against him. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's employees breached the oral contract by having plaintiff's security level raised and issuing a conduct report against plaintiff.
{¶2} Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $10,000.00 and enforcement of the oral contract. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶3} Defendant submitted an investigation report denying liability in this matter.Defendant states that an internal investigation was conducted during which Investigator Wine stated that "at no time did he enter into a verbal contract" with plaintiff. Defendant states that the investigation into Aramark found that an Aramark employee participated in an unauthorized relationship with plaintiff and another incarcerated individual to transport contraband into TCI. It was further determined that plaintiff was involved in a romantic relationship with the Aramark employee under investigation. Defendant denies the creation of any oral contract and states that its investigation found that there was no violation of any rules, policies, or law by any of its employees.
Defendant's November 28, 2023 motion for an extension of time to file an investigation report is GRANTED, instanter.
{¶4} Whether a contract exists and the interpretation of a contract present questions of law. Hanna v. Groom, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-502, 2008-Ohio-765, ¶ 9. But see Balalovski v. Tanevski, 2021-Ohio-3990, 180 N.E.3d 1230, ¶ 42 (10th Dist.), quoting Depompei v. Santabarbara, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101163, 2015-Ohio-18, ¶ 21 ("[u]nder Ohio law, '[t]he existence and the terms of an oral contract are issues for the trier of fact * * *'").
{¶5} A contract is defined as a "'[a] promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.'" Episcopal Retirement Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Indus. Rels., 61 Ohio St.3d 366, 369, 575 N.E.2d 134 (1991), quoting Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts (1981) 5, Section 1. To declare the existence of a contract, "both parties to the contract must consent to its terms; there must be a meeting of the minds of both parties; and the contract must be definite and certain." (Citations omitted.) Episcopal Retirement Homes, 61 Ohio St.3d at 369, 575 N.E.2d 134 (1991). Under Ohio law there "are three classes of simple contracts: express, implied in fact, and implied in law." Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 540 N.E.2d 257 (1989), citing Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520, 525, 14 N.E.2d 923, (1938); Rice v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust, 155 Ohio St. 391, 99 N.E.2d 301 (1951).
{¶6} An express contract "may be defined to be an agreement whose terms are openly uttered or expressed by the contracting parties. In such a case, if the contracting party by his own act creates a charge upon himself, he is held to its performance, and inevitable accident does not excuse him, for it was his own folly that he did not provide against it in his contract." Linn v. E. C. Ross & Co., 10 Ohio 412, 414 (1841).
{¶7} An implied-in-fact contract is defined as a "contract that the parties presumably intended as their tacit understanding, as inferred from their conduct and other circumstances." Black's Law Dictionary 407 (11th Ed. 2019). An implied-in-fact contract "requires assent, but the court must construe the facts and circumstances surrounding the offer and acceptance to determine the terms of the agreement." Linder v. Am. Natl. Ins. Co., 155 Ohio App.3d 30, 2003-Ohio-5394, 798 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). See Linn, supra, at 414 (an implied agreement "is where the terms of the contract are not expressed between the contracting parties, but the obligations of natural justice, by reason of some legal liability, impose the payment of money or the performance of some duty, and raise a promise to that effect. In the latter case, as the law creates the duty it also provides the exception, for if the party be disabled from performance without his own default, his obligation is discharged").
{¶8} Contracts implied in law "are not true contracts; the relation springing therefrom is not in a strict sense contractual but quasi-contractual or constructively contractual. In truth contracts implied in law are often called quasi contracts or constructive contracts." Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520, 525, 14 N.E.2d 923 (1938), citing Columbus, Hocking Valley & Toledo Ry. Co. v. Gaffney, 65 Ohio St., 104, 61 N. E. 152 (1901).
{¶9} "A contract can be verbal and may be enforceable provided there is 'sufficient particularity to form a binding contract[.]'" Chuma v. Patterson, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 21CA12, 2023-Ohio-1128, ¶ 38, quoting Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-2985, 770 N.E.2d 58, ¶ 15. "Terms of an oral contract may be determined from 'words, deeds, acts, and silence of the parties.'" Kostelnik at ¶ 15, quoting Rutledge v. Hoffman, 81 Ohio App. 85, 75 N.E.2d 608 (12th Dist. 1947), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶10} Ohio courts have determined that a party that seeks to enforce an oral contract is required to prove the existence of the contract by clear and convincing evidence. See Chuma v. Patterson, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 21CA12, 2023-Ohio-1128, ¶ 38; Widok v. Estate of Wolf, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108717, 2020-Ohio-5178, ¶ 54; Ramun v. Ramun, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 61, 2014-Ohio-4440, ¶ 26. In Ramun the Seventh District Court of Appeals discussed the burden of proof under Ohio law for the enforcement of an oral contract as follows:
{¶11} Ohio courts have held that "[t]he burden of proof on one seeking to enforce an oral contract requires that party to prove the existence of the contract by clear and convincing evidence. 'Clear and convincing evidence' is evidence that will produce in the fact-finder's mind a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." (Citations omitted.) Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 4th Dist. No. 09CA22, 2010-Ohio-1894, ¶ 20. Ohio applies this heightened burden because oral contracts are disfavored. Busch Bros. Elevator Co. v. Unit Bldg. Servs., 190 Ohio App.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-5320, 942 N.E.2d 404, ¶6 (1st Dist.), citing Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-2985, 770 N.E.2d 58, ¶15.
{¶12} Applying Ohio law as to the heightened burden of proof, a federal district court in Ohio has remarked: "As a result, [a plaintiff] has the burden of proving the oral contract 'by such clear and convincing oral proof as will amount in effect to a written document.' 84 Ohio Jur. 3d Specific Performance § 133." Adams v. Karl, S.D.Ohio No. 2:13-cv-894, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172149, at *11 (Dec. 13, 2016).
{¶13} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe, or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness's testimony. State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The court finds plaintiff's statement not particularly persuasive.
{¶14} Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Investigator Wine entered into an oral contract with plaintiff and has failed to concretely define even what the terms of the oral contract may have been.
{¶15} Additionally, the oral contract plaintiff alleges was created involves the transfer of plaintiff to a different facility. Even if plaintiff demonstrated that an oral contract existed, this court is without authority to enforce it. Prisoner placement is a discretionary decision not subject to review. "It is also well-settled that the state is immune from liability for its legislative or judicial functions, or for the exercise of executive functions that involve a high degree of official judgment or discretion." Reynolds v. State, 14 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 471 N.E.2d 776 (1984); see also Von Hoene v. State, 20 Ohio App.3d 363, 364 (1st Dist. 1985).
{¶16} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶17} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.