2012 Ohio 1838
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Barton purchased 12 investment properties after responding to a newspaper advertisement in 2005.
- Several foreclosure actions targeted various properties, prompting Barton to file third‑party complaints.
- The parties moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) arguing res judicata and the two‑dismissal rule barred the suit.
- The trial court held the two‑dismissal rule and res judicata barred the claims for most defendants.
- The court concluded some defendants’ claims remained pending and dismissed accordingly.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding res judicata did not bar Barton’s claims for the subject properties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the current suit. | Barton claims differing properties avoid res judicata. | Defendants contend prior dismissals bar the suit under res judicata. | Res judicata does not bar here. |
| Whether the two‑dismissal rule applies to bar the action. | Barton dismissed third‑party claims per property, not the entire action. | Two unilateral dismissals trigger with‑prejudice adjudication. | Two‑dismissal rule does not apply. |
| Whether third‑party pleadings were proper for the foreclosed properties. | Third‑party claims were tied to the main foreclosure actions. | Third‑party claims must arise from the same transaction as the main action. | Third‑party claims improper where not derivative of the main action. |
| Whether res judicata applies to the claims against RCA, Viola, Spuzillo, GJS, Gofman, and others. | Claims relate to different properties and banks, not identical issues. | Preceding actions bar relitigation. | Not barred for the same reasons; remand for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olynyk v. Scoles, 114 Ohio St.3d 56 (2007-Ohio-2878) (two unilateral Civ.R. 41(A)(1) dismissals with prejudice unless treated otherwise)
- State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107 (1991) (res judicata requires consideration of evidence outside complaint for Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995-Ohio-331) (syllabus on preclusion doctrine)
- State ex rel. Jacobs v. Mun. Court of Franklin Cty., 30 Ohio St.2d 239 (1972) (proper use of third‑party impleader under Civ.R. 14(A))
- Harris, M.D. v. Pro-Lawn Landscaping, Inc., 2012-Ohio-498 (8th Dist.) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) evidentiary limits on considering outside pleadings)