Calderone v. Duebelt

2025 Ohio 800

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 10, 2025
• Docket: 2024-T-0066
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Calderone v. Duebelt, 2025-Ohio-800.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY

JACQUELYN M. CALDERONE, CASE NO. 2024-T-0066

Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

ROBERTO B. DUEBELT, et al., Trial Court No. 2022 CV 00629 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: March 10, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed

William R. Biviano, Biviano Law Firm, 108 Main Avenue, S.W., Suite 700, Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

James J. Crisan, Martin F. White Co., LPA, 156 Park Avenue, N.E., P.O. Box 1150, Warren, OH 44482 (For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Roberto B. Duebelt, appeals the judgment finding him liable to

appellee, Jacquelyn M. Calderone, in the amount of $13,539.30 on claims for breach of

contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. We affirm.

{¶2} In 2022, Calderone filed a complaint against Duebelt, her former fiancé,

and, in 2023, filed an amended complaint with leave of the court against Duebelt and

Scott W. Baird. Calderone claimed that Duebelt requested to borrow $27,274.30 from her

to pay off an unsecured loan to Farmers National Bank (“Farmers Bank”) on which he

was liable. Baird was a coborrower on the loan with Duebelt, but Calderone claimed that Duebelt failed to disclose Baird’s joint liability to her. Calderone alleged that she agreed

to lend Duebelt the money, and she issued a check to Farmers Bank on his behalf. In

return, Calderone maintained that Duebelt agreed to make monthly payments of $500 to

her until he refinanced or sold certain real property that he had purchased with the

Farmers Bank loan, at which time he would pay the remaining balance due to Calderone

in full. Thereafter, Calderone claimed that Duebelt made no monthly payments to her,

and he repaid her only $10,000 after he sold the property. Calderone further claimed that

she and Duebelt terminated their engagement in January 2020, and they agreed to sell

the engagement ring and to apply the proceeds toward Duebelt’s debt to her. Calderone

received $3,735 from the ring sale.

{¶3} Based on these allegations, Calderone asserted claims for breach of

contract and fraud against Duebelt and a claim of unjust enrichment against Duebelt and

Baird. In her prayer for relief, Calderone requested judgment for the balance due to her

from the payoff of the Farmers Bank loan plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

{¶4} Thereafter, Duebelt and Baird each filed motions for summary judgment,

which the trial court denied. The case then proceeded to bench trial, where Duebelt

maintained that Calderone’s payoff of the loan was a birthday gift to him. Following the

close of the evidence, Duebelt moved for a directed verdict on Calderone’s claims,

maintaining that they were barred by the statute of frauds pursuant to R.C. 1335.05. The

trial court took the matters under advisement.

{¶5} In a judgment entered on July 31, 2024, the court found Calderone’s

testimony that she and Duebelt entered into an oral contract for repayment of the payoff

to be more credible than Duebelt’s assertion that the payoff was a gift. The court also

Case No. 2024-T-0066 determined that Duebelt had concealed from Calderone that Baird was jointly liable on

the loan. The court further concluded that Duebelt and Baird were unjustly enriched by

Calderone’s payoff of the loan. Accordingly, the court entered judgment against Duebelt

and Baird jointly and severally in the amount of $13,539.30, plus interest, and the costs

of the action.

{¶6} In the July 31, 2024 entry, aside from noting that Calderone had requested

punitive damages and attorney fees, the trial court did not address punitive damages or

attorney fees, and thus implicitly overruled these requests. See Home S. & L. Co. of

Youngstown v. Great Lake Plaza, Ltd., 2012-Ohio-3420, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.) (a request for

attorney fees contained within a general prayer for relief and “not laid out as a separate

and distinct claim,” is construed as impliedly overruled by the trial court where it is not

addressed in the judgment).

{¶7} In his sole assigned error, Duebelt contends:

{¶8} “The trial court’s judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee is against the

manifest weight of the evidence and erroneous as a matter of law.”

{¶9} When considering challenges to the weight of the evidence, an appellate

court reviews “‘the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the

evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage

of justice that the [judgment] must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio

App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983); see also Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179.

Case No. 2024-T-0066 {¶10} In reviewing the weight of the evidence with respect to Calderone’s claims

in this case, we note that the trial court found Duebelt liable on each of the claims for

breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. However, any of these claims

individually supports the trial court’s judgment against Duebelt in the amount of

$13,539.30. As discussed below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding

Duebelt liable on the breach of contract claim. Accordingly, we do not reach Duebelt’s

arguments with respect to the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as they are effectively

alternative bases for the judgment, and, thus, the arguments raised challenging the

rulings on those claims are rendered moot.

{¶11} “In order to prevail in an action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must

establish the existence of a contract, plaintiff’s performance under that contract,

defendant’s breach, and damages.” (Footnote omitted.) Garrett v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co.,

2005-Ohio-413, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.).

{¶12} We first note from the evidence presented at trial, it is undisputed that, on

February 3, 2018, Duebelt and Baird signed a promissory note for an 18-month signature

loan from Farmers Bank for $25,000. The purpose of the loan was for Duebelt to purchase

real estate in Girard, which Duebelt did thereafter purchase and title in his sole name.

{¶13} It is further undisputed that, on July 12, 2019, Calderone, who was at that

time engaged to Duebelt, paid off the Farmers Bank loan by way of a personal check for

$27,274.30. In November 2019, Duebelt sold the Girard property for $40,000 and

thereafter provided $10,000 to Calderone. In early 2020, Duebelt and Calderone ended

their engagement. Following termination of the engagement, Calderone sold the

engagement ring that Duebelt had given her for $3,735.

Case No. 2024-T-0066 {¶14} The primary dispute between Calderone and Duebelt pertains to whether

Calderone’s payoff of the Farmers Bank loan was a gift or a loan. On this issue, Calderone

testified that in July 2019, Duebelt asked her for a $25,000 loan because his payment on

the Farmers Bank loan was soon coming due. At that time, Calderone was pregnant with

the parties’ child, who was born July 22, 2019. Calderone was aware that her income was

going to be reduced while she was on maternity leave, but she had savings that were

sufficient to payoff Duebelt’s loan. The parties agreed that Calderone would pay off the

loan and Duebelt would repay Calderone by making $500 payments to her on the first of

each month until Duebelt sold the Girard residence, at which point he would pay her the

balance. Calderone maintained that Duebelt assured her that he would make immediate

efforts to sell the residence. In accordance with this agreement, Duebelt made an

appointment at a Farmers Bank branch. When Calderone and Duebelt arrived at the

bank, a bank employee informed them that $27,274.30 was due to pay off the loan due

to accrued interest. Calderone did not see, nor did she request to see, a copy of the

signed note. She was unaware that Baird had also signed the loan as a borrower and

only became aware of this fact through discovery after she commenced this action.

{¶15} In addition, Calderone testified that, following her payoff of the Farmers

Bank loan, Duebelt failed to make any monthly payments to her, and he paid her only

$10,000 from the sale of the Girard residence. Calderone maintained that Duebelt

informed her that he had other expenses and bills to pay from the sale proceeds, and he

would pay off the remaining $17,000 later. Calderone maintained that Duebelt’s failure to

pay her back as agreed was a significant factor in the parties ending their relationship in

January 2020.

Case No. 2024-T-0066 {¶16} Further, Calderone testified that, after the parties ended their relationship,

she intended to sell the engagement ring. Calderone submitted as an exhibit a screenshot

of text messages between her and Duebelt regarding the ring. The exhibit displays the

following messages:

[DUEBELT:] Give me the ring

[CALDERONE:] What does the ring have to do with the car?

[DUEBELT:] Its not about the car its about money

[DUEBELT:] I want the ring

[CALDERONE:] Yes, and you owe me $500 to get the car fixed.

[DUEBELT:] Give me the ring and you’ll get ur $500

[CALDERONE:] The ring is going towards the $17000 you owe me.

[DUEBELT:] Absolutely

[DUEBELT:] But u don’t call the shots

(Sic. throughout).

{¶17} In contrast with the above testimony, Duebelt testified that Calderone paid

off the Farmers Bank loan as a gift to him for his birthday, which is July 14. Although he

recalled receiving a reminder in 2019 that the Farmers Bank loan was coming due, he did

not ask Calderone for funds to pay off the loan. Duebelt maintained that the $10,000 he

provided to Calderone after sale of the Girard residence was a gift to Calderone to show

his appreciation.

{¶18} In support of Duebelt’s position that the Farmers Bank loan payoff was a

gift, he presented the testimony of Lisa Fowler and his mother.

Case No. 2024-T-0066 {¶19} Lisa Fowler testified that she was familiar with Calderone and Duebelt

because she had attended the same fitness class as Calderone at a gym where Duebelt

was the instructor. After Duebelt’s birthday in 2019, Fowler maintained that she was

training with Duebelt at a different gym, and Calderone was present at the gym. Fowler

asked Duebelt what he had received for his birthday, and he informed her that Calderone

had paid off his loan. She told Calderone that was a nice birthday present, and Calderone

responded by saying “yeah” and smiling. Fowler indicated that Calderone was not

pregnant during this conversation.

{¶20} However, Calderone testified that if she talked to Lisa Fowler about the loan

payoff in 2019, she would have been noticeably pregnant at that time because she paid

off the loan on July 12, 2019 and gave birth to the parties’ child on July 22, 2019.

Calderone further maintained that she was not present at the gym in 2019 after she gave

birth.

{¶21} Duebelt’s mother testified that she hosted a birthday dinner for Duebelt on

July 14, 2019. Duebelt and Calderone were both present. At that time, Duebelt’s mother

asked Calderone why she paid off the loan for Duebelt’s birthday, and Calderone

responded that she “wanted to.”

{¶22} However, Calderone maintained that she did not pay off the Farmers Bank

loan as a gift, and she submitted an exhibit consisting of order receipts for several items

that she had purchased for Duebelt’s birthday in 2019.

{¶23} Further, as a rebuttal witness, Calderone called her mother, who testified

that the day after Calderone gave birth, July 23, 2019, she was at the hospital speaking

with Duebelt in the hallway about how expensive children are to raise. At that time,

Case No. 2024-T-0066 Duebelt guaranteed Calderone’s mother that he would pay back the loan to Calderone.

On another occasion, several days later, Duebelt again told Calderone’s mother that he

would pay back the loan.

{¶24} Based on the evidence admitted at trial, Duebelt maintains that the weight

of the evidence does not support judgment against him on the breach of contract claim,

because the only evidence of the existence of a contract was the testimony of Calderone.

Duebelt maintains that “[t]his scant testimony without more is insufficient as a matter of

law to establish an agreement.”

{¶25} However, Calderone’s testimony established the elements of the breach of

contract claim, and it was within the province of the trial court, as finder of fact, to believe

Calderone’s testimony. See Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984)

(“The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests with

the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their

demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the

credibility of the proffered testimony.”).

{¶26} Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court’s determination that Duebelt

breached an oral contract was against the weight of the evidence.

{¶27} Nonetheless, Duebelt further argues that the court erred in implicitly denying

his motion for a directed verdict on Calderone’s claims pursuant to R.C. 1335.05.

{¶28} “A court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a directed verdict under

Civ.R. 50(A)(4) is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” Rieger v. Giant Eagle,

Inc., 2019-Ohio-3745, ¶ 8, citing White v. Leimbach, 2011-Ohio-6238, ¶ 22.

{¶29} Civ.R. 50(A)(4) provides:

Case No. 2024-T-0066 When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue.

{¶30} Here, Duebelt maintains that, if there were an oral agreement that Duebelt

would repay Calderone in full after selling the Girard residence, such a sale would not

necessarily have occurred within one year, and thus her claim is barred pursuant to the

statute of frauds.

{¶31} Duebelt relies on R.C. 1335.05, which provides:

No action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant, upon a special promise, to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person; nor to charge an executor or administrator upon a special promise to answer damages out of his own estate; nor to charge a person upon an agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon a contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or interest in or concerning them, or upon an agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof; unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized.

{¶32} However, “[t]he ‘“not to be performed within one year” provision of the

Statute of Frauds . . . has been given a literal and narrow construction.’” Voelz v. Morgan,

2015-Ohio-4268, ¶ 50 (5th Dist.), quoting Sherman v. Haines, 73 Ohio St.3d 125, 127

(1995). “In particular, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that, ‘[if] the time of payment

under the agreement is indefinite or dependent upon a contingency which may happen

within one year, the agreement does not fall within [Section 1335.05].’” Voelz at ¶ 50,

quoting Sherman at syllabus. 9

Case No. 2024-T-0066 {¶33} Here, the agreement between Duebelt and Calderone provided that the time

of full repayment was dependent on the sale of the Girard residence, which could have

been (and in fact was) sold within a year. Accordingly, R.C. 1335.05 does not apply.

{¶34} For the foregoing reasons, Duebelt’s sole assigned error lacks merit.

{¶35} The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,

SCOTT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2024-T-0066