Adams v. Simonetti
2017 Ohio 2674
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Bret Adams sued Simonetti and Burkhart for tortious interference; they counterclaimed for abuse of process. The cases were consolidated with an earlier suit (Case No. 11CVH-2192).
- A settlement was reached in the consolidated litigation in August 2013; the record on appeal did not include the settlement agreement.
- Adams’ separate filings (including a federal suit against the trial judge) delayed proceedings; that federal suit was dismissed.
- The trial court found for Simonetti and Burkhart on their abuse-of-process counterclaim, awarded $30,125 in attorney fees and $10,000 in punitive sanctions, and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after remand.
- Adams appealed, arguing (1) the claim was resolved by the settlement/consolidation and (2) the defendants failed to prove abuse of process and Adams’ reliance on counsel was a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the abuse-of-process claim was extinguished by the settlement/consolidation | Settlement in the consolidated case disposed of all related claims, including the abuse-of-process counterclaim | No record shows the settlement covered the counterclaim; defendants were not named parties at trial in the consolidated case | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no evidence the settlement included the abuse-of-process claim |
| Whether defendants met burden of proof on abuse of process | Defendants failed to prove the elements of abuse of process | Defendants showed the suit was used to accomplish an ulterior purpose and caused direct harm | Trial court’s finding for defendants was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether reliance on advice of counsel is a defense to abuse of process | Adams contended that reliance on counsel’s advice absolves him of liability | Advice of counsel is not a defense to abuse of process (distinct from malicious prosecution) | Court rejected advice-of-counsel defense; it is not applicable to abuse of process |
| Whether trial judge’s handling (including being sued by Adams) tainted judgment | Adams argued judge’s involvement created unfairness or bias | Judge issued findings after hearing evidence; adopted proposed findings and conclusions | No abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (discretionary standard for attorney-fee awards)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 264 (elements and scope of abuse of process)
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (relation between abuse of process and malicious prosecution)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (presumption of validity when necessary transcript portions are omitted)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (appellant’s duty to ensure record on appeal)
- Reenan v. Klein, 3 Ohio App.3d 142 (discussing reliance on counsel in related contexts)
- Ashcraft v. Lodge, 118 Ohio App. 506 (advice of counsel as defense to malicious prosecution)