PSE Credit Union, Inc. v. Wells
2016 Ohio 7780
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- PSE Credit Union sued Andre Wells after Wells obtained a mechanic’s lien on a 2004 Land Rover that PSE claimed as collateral for a defaulted promissory note. PSE sought replevin, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a declaratory judgment preventing issuance of a title clearing PSE’s interest.
- Wells answered, moved to dismiss in part, and asserted counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference; PSE never answered those counterclaims.
- The trial court dismissed some of PSE’s claims but left others pending; later, PSE voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice while Wells’s counterclaims remained pending, and the court erroneously deactivated the case.
- Wells moved for a default judgment on his counterclaims; the case was reinstated and a default hearing scheduled.
- Months after the 28-day deadline to answer or file a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion on the counterclaims had passed, PSE filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Wells’s counterclaims; PSE did not request leave or explain the delay.
- The trial court granted PSE’s late Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. On appeal, the Eighth District reversed, holding the motion was untimely and the court abused its discretion in allowing it; the matter was remanded for a default-judgment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSE could file a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion more than 28 days after service instead of answering | PSE: A party may file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer; timing is flexible and motion can be filed later | Wells: PSE failed to file an answer or a timely motion within 28 days and gave no reason or motion for extension; thus PSE waived that procedure and default remedies applied | Court: PSE waited over a year and gave no excuse; under Civ.R. 6(B) untimely filing required a motion showing excusable neglect. Trial court abused its discretion in permitting the late Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted dismissal without a default hearing or trial, and whether the court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings | PSE: (implicitly) merits of dismissal on the merits supported dismissal | Wells: Trial court should have held default hearing on his motion for default judgment; dismissal without following default procedures was improper | Court: Decision on this issue was rendered moot by reversal of the timeliness ruling; remanded for default-judgment proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St.2d 209, 404 N.E.2d 752 (Ohio 1980) (rules must be enforced consistently; failure to comply can expose a party to default relief)