Schuster v. Hoover
2016 Ohio 7932
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 1, 2016 Margery Schuster (pro se) sued Donald Hoover and David Cress alleging they 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 was not successfully served by certified mail.
- Appellees filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 12, 2016 (one day after the 28-day response period). Schuster filed a motion for default judgment on July 14, 2016.
- Appellees moved for leave to file their motion to dismiss instanter; the trial court granted leave and tolled the answer date for 14 days. Schuster filed additional motions for default judgment.
- On August 10, 2016 the trial court denied Schuster’s motion for default judgment and granted the motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), also finding the statute of limitations had expired.
- Schuster appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to enter default judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 6(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was required because defendants missed the answer deadline | Schuster: Civ.R. 6(D) forbids extensions by mail; default judgment was mandatory | Defendants: Motion to dismiss filed one day late but sought leave to file for cause (excusable neglect) under Civ.R. 6(B)(2) | Court: No abuse of discretion denying default; trial court may permit late filing for excusable neglect |
| Whether Civ.R. 6(D) precludes any extension to respond when service is by mail | Schuster: 6(D) gives no extension for service of summons responses | Defendants: 6(D) is limited; Civ.R. 6(B)(2) allows court to permit act after time for cause shown | Court: 6(B)(2) allows discretion to permit late pleading for excusable neglect; 6(D) does not mandate automatic default |
| Whether defendants’ delay showed bad faith or serious disregard for the answer date | Schuster: Delay should trigger default without consideration of excuse | Defendants: Delay was excusable neglect; they promptly sought leave and filed motion to dismiss | Court: Record shows no serious disregard; trial court reasonably found excusable neglect |
| Whether complaint states a claim and is timely | Schuster: Did not meaningfully contest dismissal on the merits in appellate brief | Defendants: Complaint failed to state a claim and was barred by the statute of limitations | Court: Appellant did not challenge the dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); trial court correctly dismissed for failure to state a claim and statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Dye v. Smith, 937 N.E.2d 628 (Ohio App. 2010) (standard for reviewing default-judgment/disposition decisions)
- State v. Adams, 404 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio 1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court procedural decisions)