2014 Ohio 195
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Davis was arrested January 14, 2007 for unlawfully possessing a firearm and property was seized (vehicles and currency).
- A state forfeiture action was filed May 11, 2007; Davis answered June 4, 2007 disputing the seizure as lawful and sought dismissal.
- A forfeiture trial resulted in a judgment for the State on April 25, 2008 with distribution on April 30, 2008; appeal followed, but no stay of execution obtained.
- Proceeds from disposition of seized items were distributed December 18, 2008; new titles were issued for the vehicles May 7, 2008, and currency was deposited June 19, 2008.
- On February 17, 2009, this Court reversed the forfeiture judgment; the real estate dispute was settled by a June 30, 2008 stipulated judgment and not part of this appeal.
- Davis filed a conversion claim in the forfeiture case on July 13, 2012 and an amended complaint on January 24, 2013 asserting due process/Just compensation violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conversion claim is time-barred | Davis argues discovery rule tolls accrual; claim timely if filed within two years after cognizable event. | Defendants contend accrual occurred no later than discovery of injury; amended complaint filed beyond two years after cognizable event. | Conversion claim time-barred; two-year limit applied. |
| Whether demand and refusal were required to support conversion | Possession was wrongful and inconsistent with ownership; no demand/refusal required where original taking was wrongful. | Demand/refusal is needed only for the first type of conversion when taking was lawful; here, taking was not rightful. | No demand and refusal required; actions were inconsistent with ownership. |
| Whether discovery rule applies to accrual under R.C. 2744.04 | Discretion to apply discovery rule could extend accrual period. | Even applying discovery rule, cognizable event was February 17, 2009; filing in 2012 was too late. | Discovery rule does not save the claim; accrual date February 17, 2009; timely filing not shown. |
| Whether R.C. 2981.03(C) bars or stays the conversion claim | Statute does not bar filing; stay is automatic while forfeiture is pending but does not render claim timely. | Statute stays civil actions concerning forfeited property until the forfeiture resolves. | R.C. 2981.03(C) does not prevent timing analysis; the action was still time-barred. |
| Whether Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment claims are time-barred under Nadra | Section 1983 claims follow Ohio personal injury statute; discovery rule may extend accrual. | Nadra ties accrual to state statute and federal accrual; claim filed outside two-year limit. | Claims time-barred under applicable statute of limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Signals Power and Grounding Specialists, Inc., 2009-Ohio-5095 (5th Dist. Richland) (distinguishes two types of conversion and when demand/refusal is required)
- Tinter v. Lucik, 2007-Ohio-4437 (8th Dist.) (conversion sufficiency when possession is inconsistent with ownership)
- Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Ohio St.3d 305 (2008) (Section 1983 claims follow Ohio's personal injury statute)
- Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1984) (accrual for discovery rule in federal context)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual under federal law for § 1983 claims)
- Waikem v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2012-Ohio-5620 (5th Dist. Stark) (discovery rule considerations in tolling statutes)