Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Williams v. Ormsby

Supreme Court of Ohio
966 N.E.2d 255 (2012)


In May 2004, Frederick Ormsby (defendant) moved into a house owned by Amber Williams (plaintiff), with whom he had begun a romantic relationship. Ormsby began making mortgage payments on the house and paying property taxes. Eventually, Ormsby paid off the mortgage balance of $310,000, and in exchange, Williams executed a quitclaim deed conveying the house to Ormsby. In March 2005, Ormsby and Williams separated, but continued to briefly cohabitate until Williams moved out. Later that month, Ormsby and Williams executed an agreement whereby the house would be sold and the proceeds allocated among the couple. Shortly thereafter, the couple attempted reconciliation. Williams refused to move back into the house unless Ormsby agreed to grant Williams an undivided one-half interest in the property. In June 2005, Ormsby and Williams signed a second document purportedly making themselves equal partners in the property and providing for the disposition of the house if their relationship ended. Williams returned to the house, and the couple resumed their relationship. The relationship deteriorated again later, and Ormsby moved out of the house. Ormsby and Williams filed separate lawsuits against each other, which the trial court consolidated. Williams sought specific performance of a one-half interest in the property, or alternatively, damages for breach of the contract. Ormsby sought a declaratory judgment that both contracts were void due to lack of consideration. Ormsby and Williams filed separate motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Ormsby, holding that he owned the house exclusively. Williams appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that moving into a home with another and resuming a romantic relationship could constitute sufficient consideration to support a contract. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Lanzinger, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Pfeifer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 458,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 458,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial