COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72236 CHAIM WEISZNER : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : and : STUART KRANTZ, ET AL. : OPINION : Defendants-Appellees : PER CURIAM : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT NOVEMBER 6, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-313453 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendants-Appellees: GREG KRAINESS, ESQ. HOWARD J. KRANTZ, ESQ. 1130 Leader Building Carmen Powers Krantz & Strauss Cleveland, Ohio 44114 23200 Chagrin Blvd., #180 Cleveland, Ohio 44122 PER CURIAM: Chaim Weiszner, plaintiff-appellant, raises the following assignment of error for our review. 2 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT- APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS, PURSUANT TO OHIO CIVIL RULE 12(b)(6), AS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT DOES STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. Weiszner sued Stuart Krantz and Roger Slain, defendants- appellees, for fraud stemming from a lawsuit in which Krantz and Slain were lawyers for R & S Properties ( R&S ). R&S had sued Weiszner for $69,377.57 in back rent on property leased by him for his restaurant business. Weiszner then and now maintains that R&S was not entitled to the rent but that the rent belonged to Parkview Federal Savings & Loan ( Parkview ), the mortgagee. Weiszner claims Krantz and Slain misrepresented to the court and to him that they had a settlement agreement signed by Park View Federal Savings and Loan, which had assigned the back rent to R&S who had lost the property in foreclosure to Park View. Krantz and Slain argued in the trial court that Weiszner's lawsuit for fraud should be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(b)(6) because Park View did sign a settlement agreement giving R&S the rights to rents owed by Weiszner. The settlement agreement referred to an addendum and the addendum was signed by Park View's agent. The trial court agreed and this appeal followed. This is an accelerated appeal under App.R. 11.1, which denotes that this court's decision will be brief and conclusory. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158. The standard of review on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is de novo. Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs. Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228. We use the same standard as the trial court and as 3 a matter of law, we accept as true all of Weiszner's allegations. Greeley at 229, citing Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190. However, we are guided by whether, after reviewing Weiszner's complaint, he could prove his set of facts and recover for his alleged injuries. Id. at 230. We agree with the trial court that he could not. In order to prevail on a fraud claim, Weiszner must prove: (1) a false representation; (2) knowledge by the person making the representation that it is false; (3) the intent by the person making the representation to induce the other to rely on that representation; (4) rightful reliance by the other to his detriment; (5) an injury as a result of the reliance. Kordi v. Minot(1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1. Here it is a fact that the settle- ment agreement's addendum, which was signed by Park View, gave R&S the right to collect rents from Weiszner. Consequently, Weiszner owed the rents to R&S. This court in R&S Properties v. Chaim Weiszner (October 26, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68637, unreported, held that the judgment granting the $69,377.57 back rent to R&S was correct and found as a matter of law that the settlement agreement as amended (per the addendum) gave the rents to R&S and was executed by Park View's agent. The law of that case is controlling and as such Weiszner cannot sustain his case on any of the elements of fraud. Judgment affirmed. 4 It is ordered that Appellees recover of Appellant their 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. Exceptions. ___________________________________ PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING J. ___________________________________ DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE ___________________________________ JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the .