Clements v. Brimfield Twp. Police Dept.
2017 Ohio 4238
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2010, Cheri Kuss called Brimfield Twp. police reporting her cable box, modem, and a spare key missing; officers told Thomas Clements to give the key to Kuss and leave after Kuss said Clements did not live there.
- Clements claimed he co-rented the residence with Kuss and produced utility statements; no written lease was produced that day.
- A few days later, after an altercation in which Clements stabbed Kuss, he was arrested, indicted, posted bond, and later pleaded guilty to felonious assault and burglary (reentry on June 7, 2010).
- Sergeant McCarty reported seeing Clements following Kuss after bond; Officer Pettit included McCarty’s observation in a no-contact report, leading to a stalking charge Clements contested as fraudulent.
- Clements sued Kuss and the Brimfield Police (department, chief, sergeant, and officers) alleging wrongful eviction, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil-rights violations; the trial court granted summary judgment to the Brimfield defendants on immunity grounds; Clements appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers wrongfully evicted Clements / converted his property by directing him to leave | Clements asserts he co-rented the property; officers falsely favored Kuss and ordered unlawful removal | Officers acted reasonably based on Kuss’s report and ongoing domestic dispute; matter was civil (landlord/tenant) | Summary judgment for defendants: immunity bars these claims |
| Whether officers acted fraudulently by reporting Clements followed Kuss (leading to stalking charge) | Clements contends McCarty/Pettit fabricated or wrongfully reported his conduct | McCarty and Pettit submitted affidavits showing McCarty observed Clements after bond and reported it; Pettit recorded that observation in a no-contact report | Summary judgment for defendants: officers were performing official duties and no evidence of malice/bad faith/wantonness |
| Whether defendants overcame procedural requirements for summary judgment on specific officers | Clements argued defendants failed to submit facts/evidence as to McCarty and Pettit on certain claims | Defendants moved for summary judgment on sovereign immunity and supported motion with affidavits addressing the disputed conduct | Held for defendants: immunity presented and no record evidence raising statutory exceptions; procedural objections insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (summary judgment standard under Ohio law)
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (nonmoving party must produce evidence to show genuine issues)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (entitlement to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) is a question of law)
- Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80 (employees of political subdivisions are immune absent statutory exceptions)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition of wanton misconduct under Ohio law)