Howick, et al. v. Lakewood Village Ltd. Partnership

In Howick, et al. v. Lakewood Village Ltd. Partnership, et al., 3d Dist. No. 10-06-25, 2007 Ohio 4370, the Court was presented with the issue of whether or not appellants had demonstrated genuine issues of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment with respect to partnership by estoppel's reliance prong (prong two), because the trial court granted summary judgment finding that appellants' reliance was unjustified. 2007 Ohio 4370, at P54; (June 30, 2006 JE, Doc. No. 169). While this Court recognized the rule of reasonable diligence, the Court, nonetheless, found that whether appellants' reliance was justified under the circumstances of that particular case was for a trier of fact to determine. Id. at P56. In discussing appellants' case with respect to the reliance prong, the Court stated: Appellants also provided evidence that if some of them had known that Irmscher, Knapke, Samples, and Fanning/Howey were not making a personal commitment to the project, they would have never sold their family farm. Additionally, Appellants indicated that they relied on the four newspaper articles, which indicated that Irmscher, Knapke, Fanning/Howey, and Samples were going to be general partners in Lakewood, when they decided to extend their respective agreements. Id. at P57. Assuming all this to be true, we found that the evidence was sufficient to withstand summary judgment and reversed. Id. at P58.