Brown v. Carlton Harley Davidson, Inc., 2014 Ohio 5157

Appellants Carlton Harley-Davidson, Inc. and Jane Carlton appeal a denial of their R.C. 2323.51 request for costs, attorney fees, and expenses.
Plaintiffs Bruce Andrew Brown and B. Andrew Brown & Associates, L.L.C. filed three related suits over a four-year period.
Appellants sought a finding of vexatious conduct under R.C. 2323.52 against appellees for the duplicative filings on the same facts.
The trial court granted summary judgment finding appellees vexatious litigators under R.C. 2323.52, but later denied the fee request without explanation.
Appellants appealed, arguing the denial without an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion.
This court reversed, holding that an evidentiary hearing is required before awarding costs and fees under R.C. 2323.51.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of 2323.51 fees without a hearing was an abuse of discretion	Brown argues fee award warranted; hearing required.	Carlton argues no hearing needed; conduct supported fees.	Yes; abuse of discretion; remand for evidentiary hearing.

Wiltberger v. Davis, 110 Ohio App.3d 46 (10th Dist.1996) (necessity of demonstrating fees incurred due to frivolous defense)
Stohlmann v. Hall, 158 Ohio App.3d 499 (8th Dist.2004) (frivolous finding requires proof of adverse effect and link to fees)
Bikkani v. Lee, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89312 (2008-Ohio-3130) (arbitrary denial without hearing constitutes abuse of discretion)
Sigmon v. Southwest Gen. Health Ctr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88276 (2007-Ohio-2117) (sanctions under 2323.51 require discernible conduct and adverse effect)
Pisani v. Pisani, 101 Ohio App.3d 83 (1995) (hearing not always required when motion lacks merit)
Turowski v. Johnson, 68 Ohio App.3d 704 (1990) (arbitrary denial of fees without a hearing is improper)
Stohlmann v. Hall, 158 Ohio App.3d 499 (2004-Ohio-5219) (needs explicit adverse-effect showing for fee awards)