Marconi v. Savage, 2013 Ohio 3805

Background

Marconi (neighbor) holds an easement over a driveway owned by Savage allowing access to Marconi’s garage. A fence and gate erected by Savage were contested as encroaching on Marconi’s property.
Litigation history: Marconi’s mother sued Savage in 1997 (dismissed with prejudice); Marconi, as executor and prospective purchaser, filed a 2002 suit that settled on the record with terms about a gate; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Marconi became owner of the property after the 2002 settlement and later sought to enforce the settlement in 2010, arguing a fence trespassed (she admitted knowing of a 3-inch encroachment as early as 2004).
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in 2010, found no material breach, ordered the fence and easement remain in place, and Marconi did not appeal the 2010 order.
In 2012 Marconi filed a new declaratory-judgment action to quiet title and alleged failure to obtain permits, encroachment, interference with easement use, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Savage moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata and moved to dismiss the IIED claim.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Savage on res judicata grounds and dismissed the emotional-distress claim for failure to plead extreme and outrageous conduct; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marconi is barred by res judicata from relitigating fence placement	Marconi contends she was not a party to the prior actions in her personal capacity and thus is not bound	Savage argues the 2002 settlement and the 2010 enforcement ruling resolved fence/boundary issues and Marconi is in privity or was a party	Held: Res judicata applies — Marconi was in privity with the estate/parties and the 2010 order finally resolved the fence issue
Whether Marconi was in privity with the estate/parties to bind her to the 2002 settlement	Marconi says she acted only as executor and did not own the property at settlement, so she lacks privity	Savage points to Marconi’s conduct (purchasing, renovating, referring to the house as her property, later enforcing the settlement personally) to show privity	Held: Marconi’s role blurred fiduciary and personal interests; she succeeded to the estate’s interest and is in privity
Whether principles of fairness/justice (equity) excuse preclusion	Marconi argues fairness and justice warrant relitigation to secure her property rights	Savage notes Marconi knew of the encroachment by 2004 and unreasonably delayed, invoking laches and no equitable basis to reopen	Held: No equitable exception — lengthy delay and prior adjudication defeat fairness argument
Whether the complaint states intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)	Marconi alleges continuous threats and harassment causing severe emotional distress	Savage contends the allegations do not plead conduct so extreme and outrageous as required for IIED	Held: Dismissal affirmed — allegations insufficient as a matter of law to show extreme and outrageous conduct

Key Cases Cited

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (defines res judicata scope for same-transaction bar)
Kirkhart v. Keiper, 101 Ohio St.3d 377 (party identity/privity requirement for res judicata)
Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245 (privity can exist by succession to interests or control of prior proceedings)
O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 (privity principles and successors in interest)
Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176 (broader privity application when relationships are close)
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488 (res judicata not a shield for blameworthy conduct but equity can limit preclusion)
State ex rel. Estate of Miles v. Piketon, 121 Ohio St.3d 231 (fairness and justice may invalidate preclusion in exceptional cases)
Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (standard for extreme and outrageous conduct in IIED claims)
Ashcroft v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 68 Ohio App.3d 359 (elements of IIED claim)