Messenger v. Marion Cty. Prosecutor's Office
2020 Ohio 851
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Oct. 6–7, 2010: Messenger was arrested and police seized $3,536 from his person; the next day the police released the funds to his then-wife, Christie Harrah.
- Jan. 24, 2012: While incarcerated Messenger learned (via his mother) the funds had been released to Harrah.
- 2013: Messenger filed a prior civil case resulting in a judgment against Harrah for the funds; the property officer was found to have erred but was immune.
- Mar. 6, 2018: Messenger filed a pro se complaint naming (among others) Marion County Prosecutor Brent Yager (who had died Oct. 3, 2017), the Prosecutor’s Office, the Law Director’s Office, and Assistant Law Director Jason Warner, seeking declaratory relief against his criminal conviction and money damages.
- The trial court dismissed Warner and the offices (statute of limitations/sovereign immunity/prior litigation) and later dismissed the remaining claim against Yager because: (1) Yager, being deceased, could not be served within Civ.R. 3(A)’s one-year service period and (2) the conversion claim was time-barred. Messenger appealed, also raising judicial-bias/recusal claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit was commenced against Yager given he was deceased and not served within Civ.R. 3(A)’s one-year period | Messenger sued Yager and did not know of his death; complaint should stand | Yager was deceased at filing and could not be served or waive service; no personal jurisdiction | Dismissed: action was not commenced as to Yager (no service within one year); dismissal proper |
| Whether Messenger’s claim for return of $3,536 is timely (conversion) | Messenger sought compensatory damages for wrongful taking of his funds | Conversion carries a four-year limitations period; discovery Jan. 24, 2012 → suit filed Mar. 6, 2018 → time-barred | Dismissed: conversion claim barred by R.C. 2305.09(B) |
| Whether the Prosecutor’s Office, Law Director’s Office, and Warner were properly dismissed | Messenger argued trial court abused discretion / lacked jurisdiction | Claims were previously litigated, barred by sovereign immunity, or barred by statute of limitations | Affirmed: trial court’s dismissals supported by prior litigation/sovereign immunity and limitations grounds |
| Whether the judge’s recusal/claimed bias or applicability of criminal-forfeiture statute (Ch. 2981) alters outcome | Messenger asserted judicial bias and that criminal-forfeiture law applied | Chief Justice denied disqualification; recusal rulings not reviewable by court of appeals; facts support conversion, not criminal forfeiture | Recusal/bias claim not reviewable here and fails; conversion characterization affirmed; Ch. 2981 not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (service is essential to commence an action under Civ.R. 3(A)).
- Baker v. McKnight, 4 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 1983) (when a named defendant is deceased at filing, amendment/substitution may relate back only if complaint was timely under the statute of limitations).
- Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1990) (definition of conversion: wrongful exercise of dominion over another’s property).
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (statute of limitations governed by the actual nature/subject matter of the claim).
- Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Muething, 65 Ohio St.3d 273 (Ohio 1992) (courts must look to the nature of the case to determine applicable limitations rules).
- Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1946) (personal jurisdiction over a party is effected by service of process).
- Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 775 (Ohio 1978) (Chief Justice has authority to pass on disqualification of a trial judge).