A longstanding disagreement over the transfer of nearly 25 acres of agricultural land between two families was settled when the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor of George and Rita Foos. The case centered on whether the Fooses, who received the property from Wilma Jennings in 2018, had failed to honor an alleged promise to care for Jennings and her daughter in exchange for the deed.
The appeal was filed by Debra L. McDonald, acting as executrix for the Estate of Wilma Jennings, against George J. Foos and others. The complaint was lodged in Wood County under trial court number 2023 CV 0414, with the appellate decision issued on March 24, 2026.
According to court documents, Jennings and the Fooses were friends and neighbors for more than four decades. In 2018, Jennings executed a survivorship warranty deed granting almost 25 acres to the Fooses. By October 2020, as Jennings approached age 90 and required increased assistance at home, McDonald—a retired State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) and family friend—was hired to help her. Shortly after McDonald began assisting Jennings, communication between Jennings and the Fooses broke down. Attempts by the Fooses to contact Jennings led to sheriff’s office involvement; they believed McDonald influenced Jennings’ decisions.
In October 2021, Jennings filed a verified complaint seeking return of the property, alleging that she had been fraudulently induced into transferring it based on promises from the Fooses that they would provide lifelong care—a promise she claimed was not fulfilled. The Fooses responded with a third-party complaint against McDonald for allegedly causing Jennings to breach their agreement; this claim was later settled and dismissed.
After Jennings died in January 2023, McDonald dismissed the initial action without prejudice but soon filed a second lawsuit seeking return of the property. She asked for a declaration that the deed was void and raised claims including fraud in inducement, quiet title, breach of contract, trespass, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and requested an accounting of actions taken by the Fooses while acting as power of attorney.
During trial proceedings, both sides presented testimony from involved parties and witnesses about their relationships with Jennings and their understanding of any agreements made regarding care or property transfers. George Foos testified that he had assisted Jennings for years with household tasks and errands but maintained that the land was gifted due to past support rather than as part of an explicit care arrangement. Deposition testimony from Jennings indicated conflicting accounts about whether there was an agreement tied specifically to caring for her or her daughter Karen.
The jury ultimately found that while there had been an oral agreement exchanging property for lifelong care—and that this agreement had been breached by the Fooses—McDonald had wrongfully prevented them from fulfilling their obligations under that contract. As a result, title to the parcel remained with the Fooses; however, McDonald prevailed on her claim regarding return of a tractor.
On appeal, McDonald argued two main points: first, that hearsay statements from decedent Wilma Jennings should have been admitted under Evid.R. 804(B)(5) to rebut adverse testimony; second, that it was improper for the trial court to instruct jurors on prevention of performance as an affirmative defense when it had not been previously pleaded or properly noticed before trial.
The appellate court determined that although excluding Bundy’s testimony about what she heard from Wilma may have been erroneous under Evid.R. 804(B)(5), this exclusion did not affect substantial rights because other evidence already established conflicting narratives about whether there was a gift or contractual exchange—the jury itself found no gift occurred based on interrogatories completed during deliberations.
Regarding jury instructions on prevention of performance—a doctrine holding that one party cannot claim breach if they themselves prevented performance—the court concluded sufficient evidence supported giving such instruction since multiple facts suggested interference occurred shortly after McDonald became caregiver (including sheriff’s reports and threats involving restraining orders). The record showed this defense strategy had surfaced before trial commenced.
In conclusion, both assignments of error raised by McDonald were found not well-taken by Judge Charles E. Sulek writing for the majority opinion; Judges Myron C. Duhart and Christine E. Mayle concurred (with Mayle writing separately regarding preservation standards). The judgment affirming title in favor of George and Rita Foos stands under case ID WD-24-069. Attorneys Paul C. Redrup represented appellant Debra L. McDonald; Richard Kolb and Braden Blumenstiel represented appellees.
Source: 2026Ohio1004_McDonald_v_Foos_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
