Youngstown Daily Legal News

High court dismisses appeal after docket fee check bounces

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 23, 2019

The Supreme Court of Ohio was left with no option but to dismiss the appeal of the founder of the now-defunct Fashion Meets Music Festival on the basis of a bounced check used to pay a court fee.

In a recent decision, the state's high court dismissed Bret Adams' appeal of the Franklin County appellate court's ruling because of a returned $100 check Adams wrote to pay the docket fee.

"This court has been informed that the check was returned because of insufficient funds," the court wrote in a miscellaneous dismissal last week. "(Ohio) Revised Code 2503.17 and Supreme Court of Ohio Rules of Practice 3.04 require that the docket fee be paid before a notice of appeal is filed or a case is docketed."

The Dublin man argued that the trial court mistakenly allowed a witness who had no personal knowledge of an oral contract between Adams and Oscar Singer Jr. as it related to a $50,000 loan to secure the performance of hip hop artist Ludacris at the festival.

As such, Adams believed the 10th District Court of Appeals decision was faulty to uphold a court order that he pay Singer $50,000 in addition to prejudgment interest starting on June 4, 2015, post-judgment interest and court costs.

"At issue in this case is whether there was a manifestation of mutual assent between both parties," Adams wrote in his pro se memorandum in support of the high court's jurisdiction. "Regarding mutual assent, both parties to the contract must consent to its terms - there must be a meeting of the minds of both parties.

"Here, there was no manifestation of mutual assent because Mr. Adams was acting in a corporate capacity."

Adams operated the festival as Bret Adams dba FMMF and FM2 LLC dba FMMF Fashion Music Festival.

"In order for Mr. Adams to be personally bound to the contract he must consent to the terms," his argument continued. "As Mr. Adams was acting on behalf of FM2, LLC, he could not have consented to the terms nor could there have been a meeting of the minds.

"Moreover, plaintiff did not present evidence that amounted 'in effect to a written document.'"

Adams cited the holding in Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 2010-Ohio-1894, which held that the burden of proof on one seeking to enforce an oral contract requires that party to prove the existence of the contract by clear and convincing evidence rather than the usual preponderance of the evidence standard applicable in most civil cases.

"Plaintiff failed to testify about the repayment terms or terms of breach," Adams argued. "On the other hand, Mr. Adams testified that the discussions between himself, as a representative of FM2, LLC, and plaintiff were that repayment would occur from the proceeds of the festival.

"Clearly, plaintiff did not prove by clear and convincing oral proof that amounted, in effect to a written document."

Adams added that Singer was inconsistent in his testimony and "caught several times" contradicting himself.

Several of the contradictions, Adams said, addressed exactly who the parties to the contract were.

"Therefore, in light of the conflicts in the evidence, the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed, and a new decision and/or trial ordered," he concluded.

The 10th District ruling stands in light of the Supreme Court's dismissal.

[Back]