2018 Ohio 2273
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Thomas Engler sued the Adjutant General of Ohio in the Court of Claims alleging wrongful separation from the Ohio Army National Guard in 2004, which he contends prevented him from reaching 20 years of service and qualifying for military retirement benefits.
- Engler asserted claims for breach of his enlistment contract and violation of 10 U.S.C. §1176, and filed suit in July 2017.
- The Adjutant General moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the claims were time-barred under the Court of Claims statute of limitations.
- The Court of Claims dismissed Engler’s complaint as barred by the two-year limitations period in R.C. 2743.16(A).
- Engler appealed, arguing the 15-year (formerly R.C. 2305.06) limitations period for written contracts applied and that equitable tolling should excuse any delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for claims in Court of Claims | Engler: use 15-year statute for written contracts (former R.C. 2305.06) | Rely on R.C. 2743.16(A): two-year limitations for actions against the state | R.C. 2743.16(A)’s two-year limit governs Court of Claims actions; 15-year rule inapplicable |
| Accrual date for claims based on alleged 2004 wrongful separation | Engler: claim accrues when he is currently unable to obtain retirement benefits | Adjutant General: claim accrued when the wrongful act (2004 separation) occurred | Claim accrued in 2004; statute began to run then; suit filed in 2017 is untimely |
| Equitable estoppel/tolling to extend limitations | Engler: equitable tolling should apply because of alleged mistreatment and uncooperative servicemen | Adjutant General: no allegation that defendant prevented timely filing; equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and specific defendant conduct | No equitable tolling; complaint lacks facts showing defendant prevented timely filing |
| Claim under federal statute (10 U.S.C. §1176) and limitations | Engler: §1176 claim has no statute of limitations (argued on appeal) | Defendant: time-bar defense; court notes plaintiff did not raise this below | Court declined to consider argument raised first on appeal; dismissal stands as time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standards for ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (complaint construed in plaintiff's favor on dismissal motion)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (statute-of-limitations defense may be resolved on the face of the complaint)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (1998) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act is committed)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 116 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (equitable estoppel requires defendant-induced delay preventing timely filing)
- Watkins v. Dept. of Youth Servs., 143 Ohio St.3d 477 (2015) (limited exception to R.C. 2743.16(A) for childhood sexual abuse claims)