Beatley v. Knisley

917 N.E.2d 280 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds attend college in Columbus. Lavon Baker, an agent for D, showed them various rental properties. They found a unit they liked. Before Baker would allow the girls to rent the unit, she made several telephone calls to D. Baker then told Ds that they would have to satisfy three conditions before a lease on the unit would become binding. The women needed to find someone willing to guarantee payments on their behalf and to sign a guarantor agreement, they needed to submit a deposit of $1,460, and they needed to secure a fourth tenant to sign a lease and to occupy the unit. Baker informed Ds that they had only 24 hours to satisfy all three conditions. Knisley and Wanner, two of the Ds, completed rental applications and signed the lease that Baker presented to them. Later that day, Irene (D) visited Beatley's offices. After Baker told Irene (D) about the three conditions, Irene (D) completed a rental application and signed the lease also. None of the conditions appeared in the lease itself. P approved the' rental applications and signed the lease. He then withdrew the 136 E. Norwich unit from the market. Ds failed to satisfy any of the conditions. When Ds did not move into the unit P sent them a letter stating that they owed him $4,380 as of September 19, 2006, and that they would owe an additional $ 1,460 rental payment on October 1, 2006. Ds were nonetheless totally surprised. When P learned that Ds refused to take possession of the unit, he re-rented it. D filed suit for breach of contract. P moved for summary judgment. In his motion, P contended that Ds could not rely upon oral conditions precedent as a defense to his breach of contract claim. D argued that because the lease was an integrated contract, the parol evidence rule barred evidence of any conditions precedent orally imposed prior to the signing of the lease. the trial court granted him summary judgment on March 19, 2008. The trial court issued a judgment entry awarding D damages in the amount of $10,054.92, plus costs and post-judgment interest of eight percent per annum. Ds appealed.