2020 Ohio 4688
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Angel Ri’Chard (pro se) sued Bank of America for breach of contract after the bank, as lienholder, allegedly lost the title to her financed vehicle.
- Ri’Chard alleged she could not use the car for seven months but continued making car payments and paying insurance during that time.
- She sought restitution for seven months of payments and insurance, duplicate-title and lien fees, and other relief (e.g., surrender/wash of the vehicle and relief from the bank’s threats).
- Bank of America moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the complaint failed to identify the contract or attach documentation and that attachments should not be considered on a motion to dismiss.
- The trial court granted dismissal; Ri’Chard appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the complaint — though inartful — pleaded the essential elements of a breach‑of‑contract claim and survived a 12(B)(6) challenge; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ri’Chard’s complaint states a claim for breach of contract sufficient to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal | Ri’Chard alleged Bank lost the vehicle title, she continued performance (payments/insurance) for seven months, and suffered damages; this gives fair notice of a car‑loan breach | Bank argued the complaint failed to identify the contract or attach controlling documents and that attachments cannot be considered on a 12(B)(6) motion | Reversed: complaint adequately alleged the four elements (existence of contract, plaintiff performance, defendant breach, damages) under notice‑pleading; dismissal improper; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (establishes de novo review for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (motion to dismiss requires that it appear beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (12(B)(6) tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (court may not rely on evidence or allegations outside the complaint when ruling on a dismissal)
- Fancher v. Fancher, 8 Ohio App.3d 79 (under Civ.R. 8, notice pleading requires operative facts sufficient to give fair notice)