2021 Ohio 3026
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mott (pro se) paid $10,800 in advance to Dr. Morgan for dental services beginning Aug 2017; parties dispute extent of services provided and whether Mott terminated or merely postponed treatment.
- Mott sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking a refund for prepaid but allegedly unperformed services.
- Morgan moved to dismiss for lack of an affidavit of merit under Civ.R. 10(D)(2); the magistrate denied that motion after Mott stated he was not alleging malpractice but only breach/refund.
- Morgan moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit listing extensive services and costs; Mott disputed portions of Morgan’s affidavit and maintained he postponed treatment for personal reasons and sought a refund.
- The magistrate concluded the parties had a fully enforceable oral contract and that the contract did not permit unilateral cancellation/refund; unjust enrichment did not apply because an express contract controlled. The magistrate granted summary judgment.
- Mott did not file Civ.R. 53 objections to the magistrate’s decision and appealed directly; the appellate court held Mott waived review of the magistrate’s findings and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to refund for prepaid dental services | Mott: entitled to refund for services not performed after he terminated/postponed treatment | Morgan: performed extensive services and no contractual term allowed unilateral refund; no breach | Court: No refund owed; enforceable oral contract did not permit unilateral cancellation/refund; summary judgment for Morgan |
| Unjust enrichment | Mott: alternatively, unjust enrichment entitles him to recovery | Morgan: express contract governs, so unjust enrichment inapplicable | Court: Unjust enrichment barred by existence of express contract |
| Affidavit of merit requirement (malpractice threshold) | Mott: not alleging malpractice; seeking refund | Morgan: moved to dismiss for lack of affidavit of merit | Court: Magistrate correctly found affidavit unnecessary because claim was contractual, not a malpractice claim |
| Waiver of appellate review by failing to object under Civ.R. 53 | Mott: appealed without filing objections (no clear objection argument preserved) | Morgan: Mott failed to file required objections, so cannot challenge magistrate findings on appeal | Court: Mott forfeited review of factual/legal findings by not filing Civ.R. 53 objections; plain-error review not warranted; appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002) (parties to an enforceable contract cannot unilaterally cancel and demand refund absent contract terms)
- State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96 (2009) (pro se litigants must follow same procedures as represented parties)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (2003) (pro se litigants are held to the same standards as counsel-represented litigants)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine is narrowly applied for upholding magistrate decisions absent objections)