Bunting v. Watts
2018 Ohio 3357
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In April 2008 Mary Jane Bunting executed a durable unlimited power of attorney in favor of her daughter, Mary Watts; Watts shortly thereafter executed a quitclaim deed transferring the Bunting home to her husband, Greg Watts. Ms. Bunting died April 5, 2008 and the instruments were recorded April 9, 2008.
- Paul E. Bunting (son) filed a pro se declaratory-judgment complaint in 2017 challenging the validity of the POA and the subsequent real-property transfer, alleging fraud, unlawful self-dealing, unjust enrichment, and that the POA was used to stop life-support to cause his mother’s death.
- The trial court initially dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the Fifth District reversed and remanded for opportunity to amend. On remand Bunting filed an amended complaint; the Wattses (through counsel) moved to dismiss again and asserted a counterclaim seeking to declare Bunting a vexatious litigator.
- The trial court granted the Wattses’ renewed Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the amended complaint; Bunting appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and held the amended complaint failed to satisfy an essential element of a declaratory-judgment action: it did not allege that speedy relief was necessary to preserve parties’ rights given the complained-of events occurred in 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief is proper to adjudicate validity of 2008 POA and deed | Bunting: the court should declare the POA and quitclaim deed invalid and determine parties’ rights under R.C. Chapter 2721 | Watts: actions occurred in 2008; plaintiff seeks relief long after events; dismissal appropriate | Held: Dismissed — complaint fails because it does not allege that "speedy relief" is necessary to preserve rights, a required element for declaratory relief |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to survive Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Bunting: alleges fraud, self-dealing, unjust enrichment, and misuse of POA to cause death | Watts: pleadings lack required elements and legal basis; events are stale and damages already occurred | Held: Dismissed — under de novo review, the complaint cannot show any set of facts entitling plaintiff to declaratory relief because it lacks the speedy-relief allegation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by adopting defendants’ factual view | Bunting: judge acted with bias and dismissed despite no factual disputes for jury | Watts: dismissal proper as a matter of law given pleading deficiency | Held: Overruled — appellate court found no reversible error; legal insufficiency governed outcome |
| Whether appellate relief is warranted because appellees failed to file a brief | Bunting: argues appellees’ omission entitles him to relief | Watts: procedural default does not automatically grant relief | Held: Court proceeds with de novo review and decides on merits; no automatic relief awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 551 N.E.2d 981 (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo)
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 565 N.E.2d 584 (accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (dismissal appropriate only when no set of facts would warrant relief)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 680 N.E.2d 985 (on 12(B)(6) court limited to complaint and incorporated materials)
- State ex rel. Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 279, 707 N.E.2d 931 (material incorporated into complaint may be considered)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 573 N.E.2d 1063 (notice pleading standard; not required to plead proof in complaint)
- Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 296 N.E.2d 261 (elements for declaratory judgment: real controversy, justiciable character, and need for speedy relief)