The Ohio Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Huth v. Burns, affecting the parties involved in a disputed liquor business purchase. The court ruled on September 24, 2026, in favor of some claims made by William P. Huth and his wife, Whitney Harris, but upheld the dismissal of claims against a third party, Trevor Rice. This ruling is significant as it addresses issues of ownership and financial responsibility in business partnerships.
William P. Huth, his wife Whitney Harris, and their company Juicy X3, LLC, appealed a lower court's decision that had granted summary judgment in favor of Roland Burns, Convst, LLC, and Trevor Rice. The dispute arose from an attempted purchase of Bolivar Spirits, a liquor business located in Bolivar, Ohio. The case was filed under docket number 2026CA00044.
The conflict began in early 2021 when Huth learned that his cousin was retiring and selling Bolivar Spirits. Huth, Harris, and Burns decided to form a joint venture to acquire the business. They agreed on a total purchase price of $140,000, which included liquor licenses and the property. Harris, who could hold liquor licenses, would be the sole member of Juicy X3, while Burns organized Convst, LLC to hold the property.
Throughout 2021, Huth and Harris claimed to have paid Burns approximately $109,000 toward the purchase price. However, they later discovered that Bolivar Spirits was in default on state tax obligations, allegedly due to Burns misappropriating funds. In January 2023, Burns filed an eviction action against Huth and Harris, claiming to be the sole member of Convst, which was the first time they learned of this claim.
The appellants filed an amended complaint with nine claims against Burns and Convst, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. They also included claims against Rice, alleging he was part of a common scheme to defraud them. In February 2026, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Burns, Convst, and Rice, leading to the appeal.
The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and the trial court's decision. The court found that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment on the claims against Burns and Convst. The judges noted that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the ownership and financial arrangements between the parties.
The court ruled, "The evidence, construed in the appellants’ favor, creates a genuine dispute about whether the parties agreed that Huth would hold an ownership interest in Convst."
Additionally, the court found that the trial court had improperly dismissed the unjust enrichment claim. The judges stated that the trial court's reasoning was insufficient, as it did not adequately consider whether Burns retained benefits from the appellants under circumstances that would make retention unjust.
The court noted, "The record presents a genuine issue of material fact on the unjust enrichment claim, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on that claim."
However, the court upheld the trial court's judgment regarding Rice, finding no evidence that he was involved in the formation or ownership of Convst or aware of any plan to purchase Bolivar Spirits.
The ruling has important implications for the parties involved. It indicates that the case will return to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings related to the claims against Burns and Convst. The decision also highlights the complexities of business partnerships and ownership agreements, particularly in the context of financial contributions and management responsibilities.
This ruling could set a precedent for similar cases involving disputes over business ownership and fiduciary duties. It emphasizes the importance of clear agreements and documentation in business transactions to avoid misunderstandings and legal disputes.
Moving forward, the case will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The parties involved will have the opportunity to present their claims and evidence again, particularly regarding the ownership interests and financial arrangements that were disputed in the original case.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding the possibility of an appeal or any related cases pending. However, the outcome of this case could influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly in the business sector.