Rose v. Cochran
2012 Ohio 1729
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Rose1 appeals a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of his complaint against Cochran.
- Trial court dismissed after considering exhibits outside the pleadings without converting to summary judgment.
- Rose alleges Cochran committed insurance fraud, libel, slander, unjust enrichment and fraud related to National Western Insurance and restitution decisions.
- Cochran submitted nine exhibits; Rose responded with additional documents.
- Trial court denied but then granted dismissal, noting venue issue could be revisited but not decided.
- Appellate reversal holds dismissal improper and remands for proper handling under Civ.R. 12(B)/Rule 56.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and extraneous evidence | Rose | Cochran | Trial court erred; must exclude outside materials or convert to summary judgment. |
| Undated affidavit/scandalous matter rules | Rose | Cochran | Court erred in handling noncompliant or scandalous material; requires proper procedure. |
| Venue under Civ.R. 12(D)(4) | Rose | Cochran | Court abused discretion; but not finally resolved on remand. |
| Dismissal for blatant fraud | Rose | Cochran | Dismissal for fraud was improper; reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (tests the sufficiency of the complaint; 12(B)(6) standard)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (preserves rule that extrinsic materials cannot be used on 12(B)(6) unless converted)
- Keller v. Columbus, 100 Ohio St.3d 192 (2003) (convert 12(B) motions to summary judgment when extraneous material is submitted)
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (require notice and opportunity when converting 12(B)(6) to 56)