2012 Ohio 3464
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Newman sued Weinman for damages arising from Sally Newman's extramarital affair and alleged paternity of a child, asserting fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
- Sally and Weinman had an adulterous relationship; Newman learned he was not the biological father of the child born in 1999; Newman and Sally divorced in 2009.
- Weinman and Sally formed Tri-County Physical Therapy in 1993; Sally worked as a physical therapist for Weinman who owned Sports Rehabilitation Consultants.
- Weinman moved to dismiss (or for SJ) and for attorney fees; the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and awarded $2,403 in fees on September 6, 2011.
- The trial court relied on R.C. 2305.29 abolishing amatory actions and Weinman v. Larsh to preclude Newman's claims and to dismiss the claim for past necessaries; the trial court also followed Weinman on the support-related issues; the appellate court ultimately affirmed.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal and fee award on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion of amatory actions under RC 2305.29? | Newman contends his claims fall outside amatory scope. | Weinman relies on RC 2305.29 and Weinman v. Larsh to bar claims. | Precluded; amatory actions barred. |
| Recovery for past child support/necessaries? | Newman seeks reimbursement for support paid during years he believed he was the father. | Weinman argues no statutory basis to recover past necessaries. | No standing; claims dismissed. |
| Attorney-fee award proper under RC 2323.51? | Newman challenges fee award as unwarranted. | Fees were proper due to frivolous conduct avoided by the case. | Fees upheld; discretionary but not abused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinman v. Larsh, 5 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 1983) (amatory actions abolished; preclusion of alienation of affections and criminal conversation)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 1988) (amatory-type claims precluded by statute/court policy)
- McCutcheon v. Brooks, 37 Ohio App.3d 110 (Ohio App.3d 1988) (amatory-action preclusion under existing law)
- Bailey v. Searles-Bailey, 140 Ohio App.3d 174 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2000) (illustrates alienation/criminal-conversation concept)
- Smith v. Lyon, 9 Ohio App.2d 141 (Ohio 6th Dist. 1918) (early articulations of related tort concepts)