Haley v. Bank of Am. Corp.
2012 Ohio 4824
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Haley appeals from a trial court judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action against Bank of America entities and the Secretary of State.
- Haley alleged a settlement between him and Maxim (the Maxim litigation) and sought declarations about Bank of America’s liability and the naming of Bank of America in lieu of corporate structure.
- Haley asserted Bank of America could be sued by simply naming “Bank of America” and sought to interpret settlements and collect on judgments.
- The Nomad litigation remains pending; Haley seeks guidance on collecting his Nomad judgment and about property held by Bank of America.
- The trial court granted Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss the Bank of America defendants and the Secretary of State; Haley appeals.
- The appellate court affirms, holding the claims fail for lack of justiciable controversy and proper declaratory judgment scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the declaratory judgment action presents a justiciable controversy | Haley contends there are live disputes from the Maxim settlement and Nomad judgment | Bank of America argues no cognizable controversy with respect to the Bank of America defendants and the terms at issue | No justiciable controversy; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Nomad judgment creates a controversy against Bank of America for declaratory relief | Haley seeks guidance on collection and discovery from Bank of America | Resolution depends on pending Nomad litigation; not appropriate for declaratory relief | Not a proper declaratory judgment issue; dismissal affirmed as to Bank of America |
| Whether the Ohio Secretary of State is a proper or necessary party | Secretary regulates the defendant corporations; seeks relief involving registration | Secretary not a necessary party; no facts show injury or dispute with Secretary | Not a proper party; no abuse of discretion in dismissal |
| Whether a private right of action exists under R.C. 1329.10(C) to sue Bank of America generically | Public-injury style relief against fictitious name is implied private right | Statute allows AG action only; no private right; Haley is not an attorney | No private right of action; declaratory relief properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93 (Ohio 1973) (establishes standard for declaratory relief in controversies)
- Price v. Dempsey, 68 Ohio App.2d 136 (8th Dist. 1941) (declatory judgment in pending actions not favored; lack of real controversy)
- Wagner v. Cleveland, 62 Ohio App.3d 8 (8th Dist. 1988) (defines justiciability for declaratory judgments)
- Therapy Partners of Am., Inc. v. Health Providers, Inc., 129 Ohio App.3d 572 (9th Dist. 1998) (declaratory relief not appropriate where facts unresolved or pending litigation exists)
- In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168 (1991) (waiver for not raising argument in trial court; review limits)
- McIntyre v. Rice, 2003-Ohio-3940 (8th Dist. 2003) (pleading requirements for notice and injury in declaratory actions)