2017 Ohio 7088
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Patricia Metzler, pro se, sued Fifth Third Bank in June 2016 alleging wrongful mortgage recordings, improper fees/overcharges, misapplied payments, and asserted claims including slander of title, fraud, "equity skimming"/civil theft, quiet title, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation.
- Fifth Third moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted the motion in an August 11, 2016 judgment.
- The trial court dismissed four claims as time-barred (slander of title, civil theft/equity skimming, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation) and dismissed the quiet-title claim on the ground that lack of proper notarization does not render a mortgage invalid/enforceable against the mortgagor.
- Metzler appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the statute-of-limitations dismissals, the court’s treatment of slander-of-title and notary-law arguments, and the court’s conclusion about mortgage recording/notarization.
- The appellate court reviewed the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal de novo, constrained its review to the assignments of error, and affirmed the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims were time-barred | Metzler contends alleged overcharges through 2014 and ongoing effects of recorded mortgages tolled or revived claims | Fifth Third argued the challenged acts occurred years earlier and applicable statutes of limitations expired | Court: Statutes ran from the date of the wrongful acts (recordings/acts); four claims are time-barred and properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) |
| Proper statute of limitations for slander of title | Metzler argued R.C. 2305.04 applied (longer period) and harm is ongoing | Fifth Third argued slander-of-title is governed by one-year statute in R.C. 2305.11(A) | Court: One-year statute (R.C. 2305.11(A)) applies; Metzler’s slander claim untimely because it accrued when documents were recorded |
| Sufficiency/particularity of fraud claim | Metzler says overcharges through 2014 show timely fraud | Fifth Third maintained the fraud claim failed for lack of particularity required under Civ.R. 9(B) | Court: Fraud claim dismissed for failure to plead with particularity (not statute-of-limitations) |
| Validity/enforceability of mortgage lacking proper notarization | Metzler argued an improperly notarized mortgage is invalid and supports quiet-title relief | Fifth Third argued notarization defects do not negate enforceability of mortgage against mortgagor | Court: Mortgage enforceable despite alleged notarization defects; quiet-title claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency; factual allegations presumed true)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (rule on inferences and pleading standards on dismissal)
- Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (12(B)(6) dismissal de novo; statute-of-limitations may be resolved on face of complaint)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (1998) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act is committed)
- Buehrer v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 123 Ohio St. 264 (1931) (one-year libel/slander statute applies to slander of title)