Filo v. Liberato
Court of Appeals of Ohio
987 N.E.2d 707 (2013)
Michael Liberato (defendant) hired general contractor D&R Construction for a commercial project and orally promised D&R he would personally ensure all of D&R's subcontractors got paid in full. D&R then hired Anthony Filo (plaintiff) as a subcontractor, but D&R never paid him. When Filo asked Liberato to pay directly, Liberato refused, and Filo sued for fraud, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and conversion, noting Liberato had already paid a different subcontractor in full. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding Liberato's oral promise to cover D&R's debts needed to be in writing under the statute of frauds. Filo appealed.
Whether an oral promise to pay the debt of another must be in writing under the statute of frauds when the promisor has a pecuniary interest in the work being performed.