Login | April 25, 2024
No mutual mistake in 9th District fight over Cleveland Browns’ season tickets
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: March 16, 2018
A Summit County trial court improperly applied the affirmative defense of mutual mistake in a money dispute involving season tickets for the Cleveland Browns.
The 9th District Court of Appeals recently reversed a magistrate’s decision finding Patty Hayes not liable for breach of contract.
Court records show Hayes owned four Personal Seat Licenses at the Browns stadium. Her PSLs reserved the seats on the 50-yard line, at the railing, on the north side of the stadium in section 122.
Hayes was obligated each year to buy season tickets for those seats to either use or sell.
If she failed to buy season tickets, the PSLs were to revert back to the Cleveland Browns. The seats would then be made available to the general public or to those on a waiting list.
In 2014 and 2015, Donald Younker bought Hayes’ PSLs and season tickets at face value. At the end of the 2015 season, Younker agreed to pay her $4,000 for the four licenses – half of what Hayes had paid.
Younker sent a check for the full amount.
However, when Hayes initiated the paperwork to transfer ownership of the PSLs, the Browns’ front office told her they were worth more than her asking price and that there was a 40-year waiting list for those seats.
After Hayes told Younker she could not sell him the seats for $4,000 after all, he filed a breach of contract complaint seeking specific performance and money damages.
Younker returned his check several weeks later.
Younker won a default judgment on the issue of liability after Hayes did not file an answer to the complaint.
Neither Hayes nor an attorney appeared on her behalf at the damages hearing.
Younker, the only witness who testified, told the magistrate that Hayes’ PSLs were “primo seats” since they allowed an unobstructed view of the game and protection from the lake winds.
Younker testified his research showed the PSLs were worth up to $11,500 each.
The magistrate denied Younker specific performance and awarded him zero money damages.
The magistrate found the $44,000 amount was not within the contemplation of either party at the time the agreement was made, and that a judgment in that amount would result in a “windfall to (Younker).”
On appeal, Younker argued the trial court committed prejudicial error in adopting the magistrate’s decision regarding the money damages decision when the issue of liability had been determined based upon Hayes’ failure to answer the complaint.
Ninth District Judge Lynne Callahan agreed.
“Despite the existing default judgment as to liability against Ms. Hayes, the trial court sua sponte applied mutual mistake in order to deny Mr. Younker money damages and effectively rescind the contract,” Judge Callahan stated in her 3-0 opinion. “In doing so, the trial court ignored Ms. Hayes’ conclusive admission of liability as to the breach of contract and implicit waiver of mutual mistake. Accordingly, the trial court erroneously applied mutual mistake in this case.”
Younker also successfully argued that the trial court improperly used the contract price as the fair market value of the PSLs to calculate the money damages.
“The trial court concluded that $4,000 was the fair market value of the PSLs at the time the parties entered the contract,” noted Judge Callahan. “The trial court then concluded that because Ms. Hayes returned Mr. Younker’s $4,000 check to him, no money damages were due to him.”
The appellate court cited Reed v. Triton Servs., Inc., 12th Dist. Clermont, 2014-Ohio-3185, which found the measure of damages for contracts for the purchase or sale of private property is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time the contract is broken.
The matter was remanded to the trial court to apply the correct measure of damages and to determine the issue of money damages.
Appellate judges Jennifer Hensal and Julie Schafer concurred.
The case is cited Younker v. Hayes, 2018-Ohio-835.