Grimm v. Lynch, 2011 Ohio 5189

Grimm appealed a trial court ruling dismissing his complaint against Lynch, Rusnov, and Mull related to appraisals of Grimm’s property used in a foreclosure proceeding.
Foreclosure case Parkview Federal Savings directed Grimm’s property to sheriff’s sale; an order of sale was issued, with reappraisal in October 2010.
Appraisers (including appellees and Mull) valued the property at $300,000; Grimm moved to reject the appraisal.
Sheriff conducted the sale for $200,000, the minimum bid, before Grimm’s complaint challenging the appraisal was filed on December 27, 2010.
Foreclosure case involved a jurisdictional-priority rule because the appraisal issue of compliance with Chapter 2329 RC was already proceeding in the foreclosure case.
The trial court granted the Civ.R. 12 motion to dismiss on lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper for lack of subject matter jurisdiction	Grimm argued the case belonged in the Civil Action separate from foreclosure.	Appellees argued the foreclosure case controlled the issue under the jurisdictional-priority rule.	Dismissal proper for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whether the trial court’s lack of a fact/law narrative in its Civ.R. 12 dismissal violated review standards	Grimm contends no written findings hinder meaningful appellate review.	The court has no obligation to issue a written opinion on Civ.R. 12 dismissal.	No error; no mandatory written opinion required.

Vrabel v. Vrabel, 9 Ohio App.3d 263 (1983) (no required written opinion on Civ.R. 12 dismissal)
State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St.3d 115 (1995) (jurisdictional-priority rule recognizes overlapping issues)
John Weenink & Sons Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 150 Ohio St. 349 (1948) (same-‘whole issue’ principle applied to jurisdiction)