# McBride v. McBride, 08 Ca 84 (5-11-2009)

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 11, 2009 · 2009 Ohio 2218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3746393

## Case

- **Full name:** Kelley D. McBride v. William McBride
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 11, 2009
- **Citations:** 2009 Ohio 2218
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** WISE, J.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3746393

## Opinion text

{¶ 41} I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion in affirming the trial court's granting of summary judgment to appellees on appellant's claim of promissory estoppel.
{¶ 42} Appellant argues he relied on the "promises" of the two cited emails and as a result, suffered damages. In his affidavit, appellant attested to the following:
{¶ 43} "11. Under normal circumstances, the knowledge of my parents' interest in selling their majority ownership would have caused me to seek other, more secure, employment.
{¶ 44} "12. The December 31, 2002 email assured me that my future patience and business acumen would be rewarded with the ability to secure a plurality ownership of the corporation.
{¶ 45} "13. I relied on the promises made by my parents in the December 31, 2002 email.
{¶ 46} "14. As a result of my reliance on these promises, I refrained from seeking other, more secure, employment and continued on with Sub Aquatics, Inc.
{¶ 47} "15. Failing to seek other employment has proven to be detrimental to me as the new majority owner of Sub Aquatics, Inc. has terminated my employment and because I suffered physical problems during the course of my reliance that now makes me less attractive to potential employers."
{¶ 48} Under a summary judgment standard, the enumerated facts and reliance are assumed to be true.
{¶ 49} Appellees do not dispute the fact that appellant stayed on with the company and the company prospered. W. McBride depo. at 24. Neither appellee *Page 11
complained of the direction the company was taken under appellant's presidency, and both agreed appellant always did a good job. Id; A. McBride depo. at 21. Appellee Alice McBride was unable to contradict appellant's claim that the emails were a promise to ensure better family relations. A. McBride depo. at 34.
{¶ 50} Because of the nature of the standard of review in summary judgment matters, I would find, in construing appellant's statements in a light most favorable to him, that genuine issues of material fact based on credibility exist. The issue of the credibility of appellant's reliance and belief should be judged by a trier of fact.
{¶ 51} Based on the foregoing, I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion. *Page 1

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3746393. Public record. Not legal advice.