 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kunkle v. Akron Management Corp.9/30/2005
ought by appellees in their counterclaims against appellant. Mr. Padgett could only assert that it was his understanding that appellees brought the counterclaims "to seek damages and for costs that we incurred in defending ourselves." Accordingly, the only harm which appellees could assert with any particularity was their desire for attorney fees in defending this action.
{ } It is well-established that Ohio adheres to the "American rule," which generally requires that each party involved in litigation shall pay his or her own attorney fees. Krasny-Kaplan Corp. v. Flo-Tork, Inc. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. In fact, "it is well established that attorney's fees 'are not ordinarily recoverable in the absence of a statute or enforceable contract providing therefor.'" Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Local 112, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (1982), 456 U.S. 717, 721, 72 L.Ed.2d 511.
{ } In this case, appellees cite to no statutory authority which would allow them to recover their attorney fees associated with defending appellant's claims. Further, assuming arguendo that the "Receipt of Employee Handbook" and the employment application executed by appellant constitute valid contracts, none of those documents contains any promise by appellant not to sue appellees. Accordingly, in the absence of any justification by appellees that appellant is responsible to pay for appellees' attorney fees in this matter and any evidence of their other alleged damages, appellees have failed to meet their reciprocal burden of establishing that a genuine issue of material fact remains. Zimmerman, 75 Ohio St.3d at 449. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellant in regard to appellees' counterclaims. Appellees' assignment of error is overruled.
IV.
{ } Appellant's (cross-appellee's) two assignments of error are overruled. Appellees' (cross-appellants') assignment of error is overruled. The orders of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellees in regard to appellant's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of appellant in regard to appellees' counterclaims, are affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs taxed equally to all parties.
Exceptions.
DONNA J. CARR, BATCHELDER, J., MOORE, J., CONCUR
|