A breakup, a recorded affidavit, and $71,000 the title company couldn’t touch
An Ohio appeals court ruled that a homeowner cannot walk away from a written deal to split sale proceeds with his former partner.
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals in Trumbull County affirmed summary judgment on October 26, 2026, in a dispute that started when Premiere Settlement & Title - a real estate title insurance and escrow agency - refused to release funds from a property sale because it could not determine who was entitled to the money.
The backstory is straightforward. An unmarried couple - planning to wed - bought a home on Bonnie Brae Avenue in Niles, Ohio, in mid-2021. The property went into the man’s name alone, financed through a loan guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. His partner agreed to contribute up to $40,000 of her own money to renovate the house.
They put it in writing. A September 2021 agreement spelled out the terms: she would fund improvements at her discretion, keep all receipts, and manage the contractors. If the property sold, she would be reimbursed first - up to $40,000 - and the remaining net proceeds would be split evenly.
The relationship ended in March 2022. She moved out. He kept the house and the furniture she had paid for.
When the man listed the property for sale in September 2022, his former partner took a step that would change the course of the transaction. She recorded an affidavit and a copy of their agreement in the Trumbull County Recorder’s Office. That filing created what title professionals know as a cloud on the title - an unresolved claim that prevents delivery of clean title to a buyer.
That is where Premiere Settlement & Title found itself stuck. The agency discovered the recorded affidavit during a routine title exam ahead of the closing. It completed the December 2023 sale to a third-party buyer but held $55,568.51 in escrow. The company had already released $15,000 to the man - an amount it considered undisputed - but would not distribute the rest.
Premiere Settlement filed an interpleader action, asking the court to decide who gets the money and to let the company step aside. The title company did not file a brief on appeal.
The man’s case on appeal came down to one point: his ex-partner had not spent anywhere close to $40,000 on improvements, so she had not held up her end of the bargain and the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration - the legal term for what each side gives up to make a contract binding.
The appeals court was not persuaded. The agreement did not require her to spend $40,000. It said she would provide “a sum not to exceed” that amount. The parties’ own stipulated evidence showed she spent $1,191.34 on materials after the agreement was signed - paint and supplies from Sherwin Williams, items from Handyman, and carpet from Tondo Carpets. That was enough.
The court applied a basic principle of Ohio contract law: when the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, courts enforce them as written. They do not rewrite the deal by reading in requirements the parties never included. The man wanted the court to add a condition - that his ex-partner prove her purchases resulted in actual improvements to the property.
The court also flagged what it called a logical problem: the man had possession of the materials she bought but chose not to use them - then argued she failed to improve the property.
The court awarded the woman $11,035.38 in reimbursement for costs predating the agreement - including $2,525 toward the purchase, $3,325 for flooring and carpet, and various hardware and furnishing purchases - plus half the net sale proceeds of $30,431.12, for a total of $41,466.50. The man received the remainder, which included the $15,000 Premiere Settlement had already disbursed. The total amount in dispute was $71,897.61.
For title and settlement professionals, the case is a practical reminder that recorded affidavits and side agreements between private parties can freeze a closing and push the settlement agent into an interpleader action - even when the underlying dispute has nothing to do with the lender or the buyer. Premiere Settlement’s situation is one many in the industry will recognize: a clean closing derailed by a document that surfaces during the title exam, leaving the company holding funds it cannot safely release.
The decision is final.
