Simon Prop. Grp., LP v. Kill - 2010-Ohio-1492 (Ct. App.)

Rule:

In order to prove fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a knowing, material misrepresentation with the intent of inducing the plaintiff's reliance, and that the plaintiff relied upon that misrepresentation to his or her detriment.

Facts:

Appellee tenant was told that he would have to vacate the space he occupied at the appellant landlord's mall to make room for a national sporting goods store. Believing that the national store would boost his business, the appellee entered into a five-year lease for a smaller space in the mall at a rate much higher than the temporary lease rate that the tenant had paid previously. The national store never moved to the mall. The appellee sued the appellant. The trial court ruled that the appellant had fraudulently induced the tenant into executing a permanent lease at a mall and had otherwise violated the terms of the lease agreement. Appellant sought review of the judgment.

Issue:

Did trial court err when it found that appellant fraudulently induced the appellee into executing a permanent lease by false representation?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Evidence presented at trial supported finding that appellant had falsely represented material facts to appellee as it showed that appellant had specifically told the appelle that a national sporting goods store was taking the appellee’s space in the mall in order to induce the latter to execute a new lease for a smaller space in mall at a higher price.