In a contentious legal battle that unfolded in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, two former lovers found themselves embroiled in a complex dispute over property and financial contributions made during their engagement. Irena Domaradzki filed a complaint against Michael Dennis on August 2022, seeking declaratory judgment regarding property rights and slander of title concerning an affidavit filed by Dennis. The case, which was decided on December 22, 2025, saw both parties appealing different aspects of the court’s decision.
The roots of this legal drama trace back to 2010 when Irena and Michael became engaged. In 2013, Irena purchased a property intended as their marital home. Despite both contributing financially to the down payment, only Irena’s name appeared on the deed and mortgage. Their engagement ended in May 2015, but disputes lingered over financial contributions and access to the property. Michael continued making payments until January 2017 when he discovered Irena was romantically involved with another man. This revelation led him to cease payments and eventually file an affidavit claiming interest in the property after learning it was listed for sale.
Irena’s lawsuit sought a court order declaring Michael had no interest in the property and demanded removal of his affidavit. Meanwhile, Michael counterclaimed for breach of oral contract regarding the property, unjust enrichment for his financial contributions, breach of oral bailment contract concerning a Corvette stored at the property, and conversion related to personal belongings including an engagement ring. The court granted summary judgment favoring Irena on Michael’s breach of oral contract claim but sided with Michael on unjust enrichment, awarding him $32,782 plus interest.
The appeals court upheld most lower court decisions but denied Irena’s motion to dismiss Michael’s appeal as moot despite her satisfying the judgment against her. The judges ruled that Michael’s appeal remained valid due to potential alternative relief under his breach of contract claim which could have entitled him to greater damages than those awarded for unjust enrichment.
Representing Irena Domaradzki was attorney Christopher Mulvaney while Edward F. Herman advocated for Michael Dennis. The case was presided over by Judge Stevenson with participation from Judges Sutton and Flagg Lanzinger who concurred in part with dissenting opinions on certain mootness issues. The case ID is 2020CV200865.
Source: 2025Ohio5692_Domaradzki_v_Dennis_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf