JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cloyes
2021 Ohio 3316
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a foreclosure complaint (Sept. 27, 2018) against James and Martha Cloyes and other parties concerning real property in Franklin County, Ohio.
- The Cloyeses answered and asserted counterclaims; Chase moved to dismiss the counterclaims and later moved for summary judgment on the complaint and on the Cloyeses' counterclaims.
- The Cloyeses' counsel withdrew in January 2020; James Cloyes proceeded pro se and filed multiple discovery and other motions, including a January 4, 2020 motion to compel discovery.
- On January 22, 2020 the trial court granted summary judgment for Chase on both counts and on the Cloyeses' counterclaims and entered a decree of foreclosure; the court also denied Cloyes' January 4 filings.
- On appeal, Cloyes filed a brief that lacked assignments of error, statements of the issues, facts, and proper argument with citations as required by App.R. 16; he also raised several issues for the first time on appeal.
- The Tenth District dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with App.R. 16 and because issues first raised on appeal were forfeited; the court reiterated that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to comply with App.R.16 (no assignments of error) | The appeal should be dismissed because appellant's brief does not comply with App.R.16 requirements | Appellant submitted argument but omitted formal assignments; sought review of trial-court rulings | Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with App.R.16; lack of assignments of error is grounds for dismissal |
| Whether summary judgment was improperly granted (denial of motion to compel discovery) | Summary judgment was properly granted; respondent had no responsive opposition in the trial court | Denial of motion to compel discovery prevented appellant from opposing summary judgment | Court declined to decide merits; appellant forfeited the argument by failing to respond in trial court and by inadequate appellate briefing |
| Consideration of issues raised for first time on appeal | New issues not presented to the trial court are waived and should not be considered | Appellant raised additional claims and arguments on appeal | Issues raised for the first time on appeal are forfeited and the court will not address them |
| Treatment of pro se litigant | Pro se status does not entitle special treatment; must follow rules | Appellant sought relief despite proceeding pro se (and filed various motions) | Pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented litigants; no leniency granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43 (2013) (pro se litigants are held to the same standards as represented parties)
- Cox v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., 147 Ohio St.3d 298 (2016) (pro se litigants cannot demand special treatment and must follow procedural rules)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (2003) (appellate rules and procedural compliance required of all litigants)