Arthur Andrews Properties, Inc.: A Legal Case Study

Defendant Mark Asher, (hereinafter Asher), moves for Summary Judgment because Andrews Properties, Inc., (hereinafter the Company), negligently misrepresented the condition of the Property in question under Ohio law. Asher also moves the Court to dismiss the Company’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for this Court to grant summary judgment on Asher’s counterclaim against the Company.

Facts
Arthur Andrews, Jr. owns land located at 1000 E. Main Street, Akron, Ohio (hereinafter the Property). Arthur Andrews Sr., father of the Arthur Andrews, Jr. conveyed the Property to him 10 years ago. [Transc. Andrews Depo. At 4]. Recently, Arthur Andrews, Jr., as managing agent, decided to build on the Property through the Company. [Transc. Andrews Depo. At 4]. The Company was made in order to complete the construction on the Property. [Transc. Andrews Depo. At 5]. The Company is incorporated in Akron, Ohio, and has had no prior business. [Transc. Andrews Depo. at 5]. The Company applied for a loan through Valley Bank. [Andrews Depo., Exhibit Y]. The Bank completed a
[Transc. Andrews Depo. At 3, 5-6]. The Company chose not to investigate the condition of the lot, and therefore did not have knowledge that there were gas tanks and concrete underneath. [Transc. Andrews Depo. At 5-6]. This knowledge would have changed the type of work the Company requested from Asher. [Transc. Asher Depo. At 3]. In negotiating a contract, the Company and Asher corresponded regarding excavation work necessary on the Property. [Transc. Asher Depo. At 4]. When discussing Asher’s bid, Andrews told Asher that the lot was just a vacant lot. Andrews failed to reveal to Asher that a previous owner had applied for a permit to build a gas station, and presumably proceeded with construction of the gas station. [Transc. Asher Depo. At