Anderson v. Smith, 196 Ohio App. 3d 540

Anderson was convicted at trial of a mortgage-fraud scheme including pattern of corrupt activity, theft, forgery, money laundering, and identity fraud; convictions affirmed on direct appeal and by the Ohio Supreme Court.
On August 12, 2010, Anderson filed in Franklin County a document titled Application to Show Cause for Civil Contempt of Court Order, seeking civil/criminal penalties against Smith for alleged fraud and suborned perjury, but as an independent case rather than part of the criminal proceeding.
Smith moved to strike the application under Civ.R. 12(F), arguing it did not constitute a complaint sufficient to commence a civil action; the trial court granted the motion to strike.
The trial court treated the filing as noncompliant with pleading requirements and effectively dismissed the action for failure to state a claim; Anderson appealed challenging the dismissal without a hearing.
The appellate court held Civ.R. 12(F) was applied to challenge the sufficiency of the claim, analyzed de novo under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and concluded there is no private right of action for contempt under R.C. 2705.01/2705.02; perjury-related civil actions are not cognizable civil claims, and there was no basis for relief.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, noting public policy prevents civil suits for perjury/subornation arising from criminal proceedings, and that nothing in R.C. 2705.01/2705.02 creates an independent private contempt action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the filing constitute a civil action and may Civ.R.12(F) be used to strike a claim?	Anderson asserts a private civil action exists for contempt and the filing should proceed.	Smith contends the filing is not a complaint and may be struck as insufficient to state a claim.	No private civil action; strike affirmed.
Do R.C. 2705.01/2705.02 create a private right of action for contempt?	Anderson relies on statutory provisions to imply a right to sue for contempt.	Smith argues no private right of action is created; contempt power is judicially inherent and regulated by statute.	No private right of action; statutes regulate, not create, the action.
May perjury, subornation of perjury, or related conduct form a civil claim for contempt?	Anderson claims the alleged misconduct is punishable as contempt and actionable civilly.	Smith argues policy prevents civil actions for perjury-related conduct arising from criminal proceedings.	Not cognizable as a civil claim; no independent contempt action.

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (three-part Cort test for implying a private right of action)
Strack v. Westfield Cos., 33 Ohio App.3d 336 (Ohio App. 1986) (provides framework (Cort test) for implied rights of action)
Doe v. Adkins, 110 Ohio App.3d 427 (Ohio App. 1996) (usage in Cort-driven implied-right analysis)
O'Brien v. Univ. of Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (sufficiency standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1996) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) sufficiency can be challenged via Civ.R. 12(F))
Festi v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2005-Ohio-3622 (10th Dist. 2005) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 1988) (definitional standard for contempt and inherent judicial power)
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (Ohio 1971) (direct vs indirect contempt framework)
Costell v. Toledo Hosp., 38 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 1988) (perjury-related civil actions generally barred)
Schmidt v. State Aerial Farm Statistics, Inc., 62 Ohio App.2d 48 (Ohio App. 1978) (no civil action for damages due to subornation of perjury)
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 (Ohio App. 2009) (policy against civil actions for perjury in criminal contexts)