Rogers v. Olt
112 N.E.3d 407
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Rogers's daughter C.R. (age 15 when first met Olt; turned 18 in May 2014) moved into defendant Olt’s home in August 2014; Olt admitted a subsequent sexual relationship with C.R.
- Olt filed a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) on Sept. 23, 2014, alleging Rogers was driving by and harassing his household; an ex parte CSPO issued and the parties resolved the matter by a stipulation dismissing the petition without prejudice.
- Olt filed a second CSPO on Sept. 24, 2015, based on renewed driving-by incidents and other contacts; an ex parte CSPO issued and Olt later voluntarily dismissed the second petition.
- Rogers sued Olt in July 2016 asserting abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, frivolous conduct, and seeking a declaration that Olt is a vexatious litigator.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Olt after reviewing Rogers’s deposition (in which Rogers admitted the conduct underlying the CSPOs) and court records; Rogers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly relied on hearsay (CSPO petitions) in ruling on summary judgment | Rogers: petitions are inadmissible hearsay and Olt needed affidavits | Olt: Rogers’s own deposition admissions and public court records are admissible; no affidavit required | Court: Evidence relied on (Rogers’s deposition and public court records) was admissible; no abuse of discretion; overrules challenge |
| Abuse of process claim | Rogers: CSPOs were filed maliciously to isolate and exploit C.R. | Olt: CSPOs were filed for proper legal protection; Rogers admitted facts supporting CSPOs | Court: No evidence CSPOs were perverted for ulterior purpose; summary judgment for Olt |
| Malicious prosecution claim | Rogers: prior proceedings were malicious and without probable cause | Olt: Proceedings either resolved by stipulation or voluntarily dismissed, not favorable terminations | Court: Terminations not favorable (stipulation and voluntary dismissal); malicious-prosecution fails; summary judgment for Olt |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress / Frivolous conduct / Vexatious litigator | Rogers: filings were intentional, outrageous, frivolous, and part of vexatious litigation | Olt: filings were legally warranted; supported by Rogers’s conduct and prior agreement; not frivolous | Court: Rogers offered no evidence of extreme outrageousness or frivolous/vexatious conduct; summary judgment for Olt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (discretion on evidentiary rulings will not be disturbed absent abuse)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (definition and scope of hearsay and assertion)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens on summary judgment)
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (elements of abuse of process claim)
- Robb v. Charter Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 264 (elements of malicious prosecution claim)
- Ash v. Ash, 72 Ohio St.3d 520 (when a termination is considered "in favor" of accused for malicious prosecution)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (IIED does not extend to insults, petty oppressions)