Bringman v. McGann
2017 Ohio 8153
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William Bringman filed for divorce from Barbara Bringman in February 2013; the trial court entered a decree of divorce on April 17, 2014 ordering sale of the marital home to effectuate property distribution. Neither party appealed that decree at the time.
- Post-decree proceedings concerned auction and distribution of proceeds; the home and contents were sold April 25, 2015.
- In October 2015 Barbara (through counsel) moved for reconsideration or relief from judgment, alleging massive undisclosed mortgage payments and valuation discrepancies; counsel and a guardian were later appointed for Barbara due to her health.
- The trial court treated the post-decree filing as reconsideration; this court (Bringman I) reversed and remanded to treat the October 2015 filing as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion because the April 2014 decree was final.
- Following remand and Barbara’s death, Bringman moved for frivolous-conduct sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 against Barbara’s guardian, her attorney, and the attorney’s former firm; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Bringman’s R.C. 2323.51 motion for frivolous conduct | Bringman: the guardian and counsel pursued unsupported post-decree relief and procedural steps frivolously, warranting sanctions | Guardian/counsel: given alleged $400,000+ mortgage-payment discrepancies and valuation issues, pursuing Civ.R. 54(B)/60(B) relief was a reasonable, good-faith course to protect the incapacitated client | Court: affirmed — reasonable lawyers could have pursued relief under the circumstances; denial of sanctions was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial without an evidentiary hearing was erroneous | Bringman: a hearing was required before denying sanctions | Defendants: an evidentiary hearing is only required when sanctions will be awarded; courts may deny meritless motions without a hearing | Court: no per se error — hearing not required where motion lacks merit; denial without hearing permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 957 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to awarding sanctions under R.C. 2323.51)
- Wiltberger v. Davis, 110 Ohio App.3d 46, 673 N.E.2d 628 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (discusses standards of review applicable in frivolous-conduct contexts)