2018 Ohio 4724
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- NBRT Properties sued ATFH (and named the Parents solely to quiet title) alleging breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment over a January 2014 real-estate purchase agreement covering three parcels; NBRT claimed ATFH failed to transfer City Lot No. 16196.
- The purchase agreement identified parcels by permanent parcel numbers; NBRT attached the agreement, deeds, and a Stewart Title preliminary report to its complaint.
- The title report and attached deeds showed ATFH was not the owner of Lot 16196 when the agreement was executed; Lot 16196 later passed through a sheriff’s deed to MCLRC and then to the Parents.
- NBRT recorded deeds for two other lots but conceded no deed was recorded in its favor for Lot 16196 and did not allege possession or a remainder/reversion interest in Lot 16196 in the complaint.
- The Parents moved to dismiss NBRT’s quiet-title claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and moved for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51; the trial court granted the dismissal and denied sanctions.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal (no standing for quiet-title) but reversed the denial of sanctions, holding the quiet-title claim was frivolous as a matter of law and remanding for an R.C. 2323.51 hearing on adverse effect and amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (NBRT) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NBRT pleaded a viable quiet-title claim / had standing | NBRT argued it had possession or an interest (person out of possession) sufficient to quiet title and the court should not convert the motion to dismiss because attachments were part of the complaint | Parents argued attachments show NBRT lacked possession and did not claim remainder/reversion interest; therefore no standing under R.C. 5303.01 | Affirmed dismissal: complaint and attachments show NBRT lacked possession or remainder/reversion interest; no standing to maintain quiet-title action |
| Whether NBRT’s quiet-title claim was frivolous and whether Parents are entitled to sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 | NBRT implied its claim had arguable basis and should not be sanctioned | Parents argued the claim was legally and factually baseless (on the face of the complaint) and they sought attorney fees as adversely affected parties | Reversed denial of sanctions: quiet-title claim frivolous as a matter of law; remanded for hearing to determine adverse effect and fee amount under R.C. 2323.51 |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. Acierno, 826 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (discusses when a motion to dismiss relying on matters outside the pleadings must be treated as summary judgment and notice requirements)
- Raymond v. Toledo, 48 N.E. 1093 (Ohio 1897) (quiet-title statute does not permit an out-of-possession party who claims the entire estate to sue; only those claiming remainder or reversion)
- State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (Ohio 1997) (documents attached to a complaint may be considered part of the pleading for a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) analysis)
- State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (Ohio 1994) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))