Marconi v. Savage
2016 Ohio 289
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Elaine Marconi and Corrine Savage are neighbors who share a driveway; Marconi holds an easement for garage access. Prior litigation (including a 2002 settlement) and a 2011 enforcement action produced rulings that precluded many of Marconi’s claims as res judicata.
- In 2011 Marconi sued again (quiet title, declaratory relief, emotional distress, and related allegations) and Savage asserted counterclaims including abandonment of the easement, negligence, trespass, nuisance, breach of the 2002 settlement, prescriptive easement, and a request to designate Marconi a vexatious litigator.
- In 2014 both sides filed summary judgment motions; Savage supported her counterclaims with affidavits, public records (including a building-permit affidavit by Marconi), photographs, and deeds. Four days after dispositive motions were filed, Savage dismissed all claims without prejudice under Civ.R. 41.
- Marconi then moved for attorney fees and sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11, alleging Savage’s counterclaims were frivolous and filed in bad faith; she also sought additional discovery and a hearing on fees.
- The trial court granted a protective order barring additional discovery from Savage and her counsel, denied the sanctions/fee motions and denied a hearing. Marconi appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional discovery was required on Marconi’s sanctions/fee motions | Discovery would expose Savage’s bad-faith and frivolous conduct and support fees | Civ.R. 41 dismissal and the record already show claims were colorable; discovery on sanctions is disfavored except in extraordinary circumstances | Denial of discovery affirmed; no extraordinary circumstances and courts should limit sanctions proceedings to the record |
| Whether R.C. 2323.51 sanctions/attorney-fee award were required | Savage’s counterclaims were objectively frivolous and brought to harass Marconi, so fees under R.C. 2323.51 are warranted | Each counterclaim had a legal and factual basis (permit affidavit, affidavits, photos, deeds); dismissal under Civ.R. 41 was a permissible first dismissal | Denial of R.C. 2323.51 relief affirmed; claims were not so egregiously baseless that no reasonable lawyer could have advanced them |
| Whether Civ.R. 11 sanctions were warranted | Savage’s counsel acted willfully and in subjective bad faith in signing and prosecuting the counterclaims | Counsel had a subjective good-faith basis to believe claims were supported; no evidence counsel signed pleadings to delay or without inquiry | Denial of Civ.R. 11 sanctions affirmed; no showing of subjective willfulness or improper certification by counsel |
| Whether Marconi was entitled to a hearing on sanctions/fees | A hearing was necessary because the record evidences frivolous conduct and a hearing is required before denying fees | No hearing required when the trial court finds motions lack merit; a hearing is required only if denial is arbitrary or if an arguable basis for sanctions exists | Denial of a hearing affirmed; trial court’s denial was not arbitrary and no clear record of frivolous conduct required a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Sturm v. Sturm, 63 Ohio St.3d 671 (Ohio 1992) (party’s voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A) is an absolute right and not frivolous conduct for R.C. 2323.51)
- Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 576 (Ohio 1994) (courts may not penalize a plaintiff for exercising Civ.R. 41 first-dismissal right)
- Ceol v. Zion Indus., Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (discusses standards for frivolous conduct and R.C. 2323.51 application)