Annotico v. Gehring
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Annotico v. Gehring, 2006-Ohio-4899.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87566 JOSEPH ANNOTICO, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs. RALPH D. GEHRING, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-499557 BEFORE: Corrigan, J., Dyke, A.J., and Calabrese, J. RELEASED: September 21, 2006 JOURNALIZED: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Robert S. Passov 75 Public Square Suite 914 Cleveland, OH 44113 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Thomas J. Kraus Largent, Berry, Preston & Jamison Co. 1 Berea Commons Suite 216 Berea, OH 44017 ATTORNEY FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS S. Robert E. Lazzaro Costanzo & Lazzaro, P.L.L. 13317 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107-4814 MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.: This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and the briefs of counsel. Plaintiff-home buyer Joseph Annotico brought this action against defendant-home seller Ralph Gehring alleging that Gehring fraudulently failed to disclose the existence of flooding in the basement of a house he sold to Annotico. The court granted Gehring summary judgment on grounds that Gehring gave notice of water problems in the basement and that Annotico went ahead with his purchase of the house on an as is basis despite receiving an independent home inspection which suggested further examination of the problem. The court did not err by granting summary judgment. It correctly noted that under the doctrine of caveat emptor set forth in Laymann v. Binns (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, the law imposes a duty upon a seller or seller s agent to disclose only those defects known by the seller that could not be readily discovered by a reasonable inspection. Annotico hired his own home inspector who noted present signs of basement dampness/seepage and suggested further examination. Despite this warning, Annotico proceeded to purchase the house as is. This is a classic case of caveat emptor. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants 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. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE ANN DYKE, A.J., and ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
