Schuster v. Hoover
2016 Ohio 7932
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Margery Schuster filed a pro se complaint (June 1, 2016) alleging Hoover and Cress coerced her into signing a contract and sought $1,500,000 plus punitive damages.
- Hoover was served by certified mail on June 13, 2016; Cress's service was unsuccessful.
- Appellees jointly filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2016 (one day after the 28‑day response period); Schuster moved for default judgment on July 14, 2016 and later filed responses.
- Appellees moved for leave to file their motion to dismiss instanter; the trial court granted leave and tolled the answer date for 14 days.
- The trial court denied Schuster's motion for default judgment and granted the motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), also noting the statute of limitations had expired.
- Schuster appealed, arguing the trial court should have entered default judgment under Civ.R. 6(D). The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must enter default judgment because defendants missed the 28‑day answer deadline and Civ.R. 6(D) bars extensions | Schuster: Default judgment is mandatory; Civ.R. 6(D) forbids extending response time when service is by mail | Defendants: The court may permit late filings for cause (excusable neglect) under Civ.R. 6(B)(2); leave to file was proper | Court: No mandatory default; trial court may exercise discretion under Civ.R. 6(B)(2) and did not abuse discretion in denying default judgment |
| Whether the complaint survives a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion (including statute of limitations) | Schuster: Did not meaningfully contest dismissal below or on appeal | Defendants: Complaint fails to state a claim; statute of limitations bars relief | Court: Complaint failed to state a cognizable claim and was time‑barred; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dye v. Smith, 937 N.E.2d 628 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (standard for appellate review of default‑judgment rulings and procedural defense)
- State v. Adams, 404 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio 1980) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard governing trial court procedural rulings)