2021 Ohio 2750
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- A receiver (Prodigy Properties) was appointed in a 2017 condominium-association lawsuit; the appointment order shielded the receiver and its agents from suit except for gross negligence or willful misconduct and required leave of the appointing court to sue the receiver.
- Parties later settled most claims and the receivership was extended (Feb. 2019) and then finally terminated (Sept. 12, 2019); the final receivership entry found the receiver and its agents acted within authority, in good faith, and with ordinary care.
- On March 12, 2019 (during the extended receivership), Marcus Fontain filed a new lawsuit against the Sandhus, the receiver, the receiver’s employees, and the receiver’s counsel asserting ~20 claims (fraud, breach, negligence, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, etc.).
- Defendants moved to dismiss: Sandhu defendants argued the suit was an impermissible collateral attack; receiver defendants argued Ohio law required leave of the appointing court to sue a receiver or its agents and that Fontain’s claims conflicted with the receivership final entry.
- The trial court dismissed Fontain’s second amended complaint; Fontain’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion was denied after remand; the appellate court affirmed the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice / use of receivership records on Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Trial court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings, converting the motions to summary judgment without notice | Court may judicially notice court records and online filings for a 12(B)(6) ruling without conversion | Court allowed consideration of receivership records and overruled this assignment of error |
| Ability to sue receiver, employees, attorneys without leave of appointing court | Fontain argued his claims against the receiver and its agents were permissible | Defendants: Ohio law bars suits against a receiver (and its agents) absent leave of the appointing court; the final receivership entry precludes relitigation | Court held Fontain failed to seek leave and his claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the final receivership judgment; dismissal affirmed |
| Collateral attack / res judicata / collateral estoppel | Fontain claimed defendants’ motions to dismiss were improper and amounted to collateral attacks | Defendants argued res judicata/issue preclusion and collateral-attack doctrine barred the new suit because the receivership entry resolved the relevant matters | Court held collateral-attack/res judicata principles barred the action; assignment overruled |
| Procedural rulings: extension request / Civ.R. 60(B) hearing | Fontain contended the court erred by ruling without granting his extension and by denying a Civ.R. 60(B) hearing | Defendants: no prejudice from denial; Fontain’s 60(B) filings alleged legal arguments, not operative facts warranting relief | Court found no abuse of discretion: denying extension was reasonable and 60(B) lacked operative facts for a hearing; assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (2007) (defines collateral-attack doctrine: collateral attack on civil judgment succeeds only where prior ruling lacked jurisdiction or was procured by fraud)
- INF Ent., Inc. v. Donnellon, 133 Ohio App.3d 787 (1999) (discusses receivers’ protections and circumstances permitting personal suits against receivers)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (sets three-part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Milo v. Curtis, 100 Ohio App.3d 1 (1994) (receiver’s role: preserve status quo and safeguard property; receivers generally immune from suit without appointing-court leave)
- State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195 (2007) (courts may take judicial notice of appropriate matters when deciding a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)