Filo v. Liberato
Ohio Court of Appeals
987 N.E.2d 707 (2013)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Michael Liberato (defendant) engaged general contracting firm D&R Construction and Maintenance (D&R) to perform work on a commercial construction project. Liberato orally promised D&R that he would fully compensate entities hired by D&R for all subcontracted work performed. Thereafter, D&R engaged Anthony Filo (plaintiff) as a subcontractor to provide materials and perform services to build curbing, sidewalks, floors, and other work on the project. D&R failed to make payments to Filo for the services rendered. Filo approached Liberato and requested the past due amounts. Liberato refused to pay. Filo filed suit against Liberato, alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and conversion. Filo argued that Liberato had paid one other subcontractor in full, and that there was thus no justification for not paying for Filo’s services. The trial court granted Liberato’s motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the statute of frauds required Liberato’s oral promise to pay the debts of D&R to be in writing. Filo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waite, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
