Russell v. Ryan, 2021 Ohio 2505

Neighbor dispute: Russells sued Kevin and Mary Ryan (appellants) in Franklin C.P. Ct. alleging 16 causes of action (dog nuisance, emotional distress, defamation, nuisance, etc.).
Ryans answered, filed counterclaims (trespass, nuisance), and pursued discovery; disputes over discovery led to multiple motions to compel and motions for sanctions under Civ.R. 37.
Trial court granted Ryans' motion for summary judgment on all Russells' claims and entered default on Ryans' counterclaim; awarded Ryans $200 in damages; denied Civ.R. 37 attorney-fee sanctions.
Ryans then moved for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 (frivolous conduct); Russells cross-moved for sanctions; the trial court denied both motions without an evidentiary hearing and explained neither side met statutory threshold.
On appeal the Tenth District found the Ryans’ R.C. 2323.51 motion presented an "arguable basis" for sanctions because the trial court had already found the Russells’ claims lacked evidentiary support, and therefore reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
The court also granted Russells' motion to strike portions of Ryans' reply brief for raising new arguments.

Issue	Russell's Argument	Ryan's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a motion for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 without holding an evidentiary hearing	No error; movant’s request lacked merit and Russells did not engage in sanctionable frivolous conduct	Error; hearing required where motion demonstrates "arguable merit," particularly because the trial court already found Russells’ claims lacked evidentiary support on summary judgment	Reversed and remanded: where a sanctions motion shows arguable merit a hearing is required; here appellants demonstrated arguable merit and the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (establishes Ohio abuse-of-discretion standard)