2012 Ohio 3006
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Marks sues Reliable Title Agency for breach of fiduciary duty arising from drafting a 2004 power of attorney for Susan Marks and a warranty deed for property purchased in Warren, Ohio.
- The mortgage on the property was signed by Susan both personally and as power of attorney for Marks; later, Marks and Susan divorced and the property was awarded to Susan.
- Plaintiff alleges Reliable owed a general fiduciary duty by drafting the power of attorney and should have ensured Marks’ name appeared on the deed.
- The trial court granted Reliable’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for (a) lack of a general fiduciary duty from drafting a power of attorney and (b) expiration of a four-year statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty.
- Appeal challenges both the statute of limitations and the existence of a fiduciary duty, and argues the discovery rule should apply to toll the limitation period.
- Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the claim is time-barred and that no cognizable fiduciary duty was pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations. | Marks contends a fiduciary duty existed and discovery tolling may apply. | Reliable argues four-year limit under R.C. 2305.09 bars the claim with no discovery tolling. | Time-barred; discovery rule does not apply. |
| Whether drafting a power of attorney creates a general fiduciary duty to the grantor. | Drafting a POA creates a fiduciary duty to ensure deed inclusion. | POA creates duties only between named parties; no duty to include grantor on deed. | No cognizable fiduciary duty arising from drafting POA. |
| Whether the claim can collaterally attack a domestic relations division judgment on ownership. | (Not explicitly stated as a separate issue in the brief, but implied challenging ownership outcome.) | Courts should not use fiduciary-duty claims to attack domestic relations rulings. | Collateral attack not permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slife v. Kundtz Props., 40 Ohio App.2d 179 (8th Dist.1974) (analysis of pleading standards and Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (presumptions in Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review; factual allegations to be presumed true)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (standard for reviewing dismissals; set of facts to recover)
- Perrysburg v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (discovery rule not applicable to fiduciary-duty claim; statute application)
- Pallay v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 165 Ohio App.3d 242 (2005) (statute of limitations considerations in fiduciary claims)
- Tablack v. Wellman, 2006-Ohio-4688 (7th Dist.) (limitations period for fiduciary-duty claim; discovery rule discussed)
- Kondrat v. Morris, 118 Ohio App.3d 198 (1997) (fiduciary relationship requirements and duties)
- Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 (1989) (accrual and discovery considerations for certain actions)
- Hellman v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 139 Ohio App.3d 231 (2000) (discovery rule not applicable to fiduciary claims)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (1988) (elements of breach of fiduciary duty)