2023 Ohio 3797
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- Reynolds (pro se) received a speeding ticket in Erie County (Oct 2022), then sent an "Appearance and Performance Agreement" (APA) and a "Notice of No Legality and Offer to Contract" to the Erie County Municipal Court judge and clerk.
- The APA purported to bind the court officials ("Promoters") to pay Reynolds $96,550 after her "appearance" and "performance" on Nov. 14, 2022; the APA was signed only by Reynolds.
- On Nov. 14 Reynolds pled no contest, was found guilty, and was fined $70 plus costs; she later sent correspondence demanding payment and alleged breach, seeking over $112,000 in damages.
- Reynolds sued in Cuyahoga Common Pleas alleging a contract and breach; she attached the APA and Notice to her complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted the motion, concluding the complaint failed to allege formation of an enforceable contract.
- On appeal the court affirmed: Reynolds pleaded only legal conclusions, the APA showed no mutual assent (signed only by her), silence cannot constitute acceptance, and pro se status does not excuse following pleading rules.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff pleaded an enforceable contract | APA + Notice created an offer and defendants' silence/tacit conduct constituted acceptance | No meeting of minds; APA signed only by Reynolds; no evidence defendants received or agreed to terms | Dismissal affirmed — complaint alleges only conclusory legal assertions and no mutual assent, so no contract pleaded |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R.12(B)(6) was improper or violated constitutional/Civil Rules rights | Dismissal denied constitutional protections and Civil Rules rights, unlawfully depriving relief | Motion to dismiss appropriate because complaint lacks factual allegations to state a claim | Dismissal proper under de novo review; pro se litigant held to same standards; courts need not accept legal conclusions as true |
| Whether attachments (APA/Notice) converted pleadings into enforceable written instrument under Civ.R.10(C) | Attachments prove the contract and breach | Attachments are correspondence/offers only and do not evidence parties' rights/obligations or mutual assent | Attachments insufficient to establish an enforceable contract; plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 914 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio 2009) (pro se litigants must follow same procedures as represented parties)
- State ex rel. Neil v. French, 104 N.E.3d 764 (Ohio 2018) (reiterating pro se procedural requirements)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 763 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio App. 2001) (pro se litigants held to same standards)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true for pleading purposes)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 770 N.E.2d 58 (Ohio 2002) (elements required for an enforceable contract)
- Michelson v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 99 N.E.3d 475 (Ohio App. 2018) (affirming dismissal where complaint contained bare legal conclusions)
- Richard A. Berjian, D.O., Inc. v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 375 N.E.2d 410 (Ohio 1978) (silence generally does not constitute acceptance)
- Grey v. Walgreen Co., 967 N.E.2d 1249 (Ohio App. 2011) (standard for Civ.R.12(B)(6) dismissal)