COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60197 KINGSMEN ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL. : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellees : : : and -vs- : : OPINION MARK S. KASUNIC, ET AL. : : : Defendant-Appellants : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT MARCH 26, 1992 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 165080 JUDGMENT: Dismissed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS: Thomas Schmelzer Anton M. Lavrisha Jeffrey M. McGaffick Ellen Loth Schmelzer & Associates 18975 Villaview Road 20600 Chagrin Blvd., #750 Cleveland, Ohio 44119 Shaker Hts., Ohio 44122 - 1 - ANN McMANAMON, P.J.: Kingsmen Enterprises, Inc. d.b.a. Kingsmen Home Improvement, Inc. sued Mark and Anita Kasunic ("the homeowners") for $18,930.39 under a home remodeling contract and for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. The homeowners counterclaimed alleging breach of contract, fraud, slander of title, negligence as well as violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (R.C. 1345.01), the Home Solicitation Sales Act (R.C. 1345.21), the Retail Installment Sales Act (R.C. 1317.02), and the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.A. 1601). In their counterclaim, the homeowners also named John and Irene LaRussa who were Kingsmen's directors, officers and shareholders. The homeowners sought to "pierce the corporate veil" and impose individual liability upon the LaRussas. Kingsmen moved to bifurcate the trial on the issue of corporate status arguing that, if Kingsmen prevailed, such evidence would be moot. The court granted the motion and no evidence concerning the LaRussas' individual liability was introduced at trial. At the close of all the evidence, the court entered the following order: "Defense rests. The court directs a verdict for the plaintiff on the complaint. The jury will determine what, if any, money is owed. The court directs a verdict for the plaintiff relative to Home Solicitation Sales Act, Fraud, Ohio's Retail Installment Act and Truth in Lending. The jury will decide the affirmative defenses and damages, if any, as a result of a breach. No atty's [sic] fees or punitives [sic] will be submitted to the jury." In a later journal entry, the court directed a verdict for Kingsmen on the Kasunics' claim under the Consumer Sales - 2 - Practices Act. Although the court directed the verdict for Kingsmen on its complaint, the judge nonetheless instructed the jury to determine whether Kingsmen or the Kasunics breached the home remodeling contract. The court did not charge the jury on the Kasunics' slander of title or negligence counterclaims. The jury returned an $18,000 verdict for Kingsmen on its breach of contract claim and a $12,000 verdict for the Kasunics on a part of their counterclaim. The Kasunics timely appeal the jury verdict raising nine 1 assignments of error. Absent certification that there is no just reason for delay, an order is not final unless all of the parties and all of the claims are disposed of before appeal. Civ. R. 54(B). See, also, Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 86; Noble v. Colwell (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 92; General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 17. The record demonstrates that the Kasunics' claims against John and Irene LaRussa remain pending. The Kasunics sought to impose individual liability upon the LaRussas separate from the liability imposed upon Kingsmen Enterprises, Inc. The court precluded any evidence at trial as to the counterclaims against 1 See Appendix. - 3 - the LaRussas but did not otherwise dispose of the claims. In light of the jury's verdict against the corporation, these claims must be addressed. Furthermore, the record contains no journal entry disposing of Kasunics' allegations of slander of title or negligence. The trial transcript indicates the Kasunics may have intended to dismiss the slander of title claim (Tr. 1028) but absent a journal entry to that effect, the claim remains pending. State, ex rel. Indus. Comm. v. Day (1940), 136 Ohio St. 477. Finally, the court's order directing the verdict for Kingsmen "on the complaint" arguably disposes of the corporation's foreclosure claim but the better practice is to individually address each claim in the journal entry. Since parties and claims remain pending, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal. See Civ. R. 54. - 4 - Appeal dismissed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SPELLACY, J., KRUPANSKY, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE ANN McMANAMON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. - 5 - APPENDIX Appellants's assignments of error are: I "The trial court erred to appellants' prejudice in ruling that the Consumer Sales Practices Act was inapplicable to the case and granting plaintiffs-appellees' motion for directed verdict." II "The trial court's dismissal of the Consumer Sales Practices Act claim was against the weight of the evidence and prejudiced the defendants-appellants." III "The trial court erred to the defendants-appellants' prejudice in dismissing the claim for violations of the Home Solicitation Sales Act." IV "The trial court erred to the defendants-appellants' prejudice in dismissing the claim for fraud." V "The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendants- appellants in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs-appellees on the breach of contract claim." VI "The trial court erred to defendants-appellants' prejudice in granting plaintiffs'-appellees' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granting prejudgment interests." VII "The trial court erred to defendants-appellants' prejudice in excluding testimony of customers and subcontractors of plaintiffs-appellees." - 6 - VIII "The trial court erred in bifurcating the trial and excluding evidence of defendants-appellees that would have pierced the corporate veil behind which plaintiff-appellee, John LaRussa, was hiding." IX "The trial court erred in not finding the mechanic's lien imposed on the real estate of defendants'[sic]-appellees to be defective as a result of non-compliance with the notary laws of the State of Ohio." .