Marshall v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer, 2022 Ohio 2880

Property at 101 Meek Ave.: 2017 quitclaim deed shows transfer involving Marshall and James Hinkle; subsequent 2017 and 2020 conveyance paperwork suggests Marshall acquired the property, but no recorded deed from Hinkle to Marshall appears in the record. Auditor affidavit states a deed would have been required for the 2020 conveyance form.
Marshall admits she did not mail the recorder’s filing documents and believed an unrecorded conveyance would not transfer title.
In Sept. 2021 the Franklin County Treasurer sent tax-lien sale notices for delinquent taxes to Marshall for the Property.
Marshall sued in Franklin County Municipal Court (small claims) seeking $1,000 and removal of her name as a responsible party, asserting the Treasurer was trying to make her pay someone else’s taxes.
Treasurer moved for summary judgment (Nov. 29, 2021), claiming Marshall owned the Property and invoking governmental immunity; Marshall filed no response. Magistrate granted summary judgment Jan. 4, 2022; trial court adopted the decision and dismissed the claim. Marshall timely appealed, arguing she was unaware she needed to respond to the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ruling on summary judgment before the scheduled trial without separately notifying a pro se plaintiff that a written response was required	Marshall: she was unaware a written response to the motion was required and expected the issue to be addressed at the scheduled trial	Treasurer: Civil Rule 56(C) permits summary judgment; plaintiff had 28 days to respond and did not; court may rule after response time expires	Court: No error. Marshall had 28 days under Civ.R. 56(C), filed no response or request for extension, and the court properly ruled on the motion before the trial date.
Whether pro se status required the court to give Marshall greater notice or explanation of procedural rules	Marshall: as a pro se litigant she needed additional notice/assistance about response requirements	Treasurer: pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as attorneys; no extra notice required	Court: Pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules; court not required to give greater notice than to represented parties.

The court relied primarily on unpublished/appellate slip opinions and local 10th District authorities; none of the appellate decisions cited in the opinion have official reporter citations to list here.