Floch v. Davis
2013 Ohio 4968
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Charles Davis and Catherine Tupper were domestic partners who jointly purchased a 1997 motorhome titled in both names with right of survivorship; Tupper retained the title and possession.
- Tupper died in November 2002; Catherine Floch (her daughter) became executrix and took possession of Tupper’s house and, later, the motorhome and various items Davis said were his.
- Davis admitted he had keys and stored tools at Tupper’s house, recovered a TV from the motorhome about a year after her death (he also admitted that recovery involved trespass), and years later obtained a replacement title and towed the motorhome in 2008.
- Floch filed a foreclosure action based on a judgment against Davis; Davis counterclaimed for conversion (motorhome and tools), credit damage (dismissed), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The magistrate dismissed Davis’s conversion and IIED claims as time-barred and for failure to state a claim; the trial court adopted that decision. Davis appealed, raising six assignments of error challenging accrual, continuing conversion, equitable estoppel/ tolling, recoupment, and IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Floch) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate or another prior action required Davis to assert claims earlier | Floch argued claims could have been pursued in probate or earlier proceedings; not relied on as basis for dismissal | Davis argued his property claims were not estate matters and were improperly routed to probate or other court | Court held magistrate only noted those remedies as available options; not basis of decision — no error |
| Whether magistrate’s remarks forced Davis into trespass/criminal acts to recover property | Floch relied on testimony showing Davis made little effort for years and sometimes acted without objection when finally reclaiming motorhome | Davis argued magistrate suggested he must trespass or commit a crime to recover items | Court held magistrate did not require illegal acts; Davis’s own conduct showed minimal effort and an admitted trespass, so no reversible error |
| Whether conversion claims tolled by a “continuing conversion,” equitable estoppel, absence under R.C. 2305.15, or preserved by recoupment | Floch argued statute of limitations applies; she testified about travel but court found insufficient to toll; she denied misleading Davis | Davis argued each exercise of dominion restarted the limitations period (continuing conversion), that Floch misled him (equitable estoppel), that her out‑of‑state trucking tolled limitations, and that recoupment preserved time‑barred claims as a defense | Court rejected continuing conversion doctrine for conversion claims; found no equitable estoppel (no misrepresentation or reasonable reliance); travel testimony insufficient to invoke statutory tolling; recoupment inapplicable because counterclaims did not arise from same transaction as foreclosure |
| Whether IIED was adequately pleaded and timely | Floch contended no intent or outrageous conduct; alternative statute‑of‑limitations defense applied | Davis claimed Floch’s conduct caused severe emotional distress requiring relief | Court held IIED not established (no intent, no extreme/outrageous conduct, no severe emotional harm); also time‑barred under statute (not challenged on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferranto v. State, 112 Ohio St. 667 (court’s abuse of discretion standard explanation)
- Valley Ry. Co. v. Franz, 43 Ohio St. 623 (distinguishing continuous torts like nuisance or recurring trespass)
- Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 (accrual rule: cause of action accrues when injury is discovered or should have been discovered)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (examples and standard for serious emotional distress)
- Riley v. Montgomery, 11 Ohio St.3d 75 (recoupment doctrine preserves time‑barred claims as defense when arising from same transaction)
- Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio App.3d 401 (abuse of discretion may include applying wrong legal standard)