Scott v. Nameth
2016 Ohio 5532
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Neighbors: the Scotts sued the Nameths claiming the Nameths’ perimeter security cameras created a private qualified nuisance (intimidation/harassment, loss of use/enjoyment).
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the Nameths in prior appeal, holding the Scotts failed to allege or prove physical discomfort required for nuisance damages under Ohio precedent.
- The Nameths then moved for attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 (frivolous conduct); a magistrate found the Scotts’ continued prosecution frivolous and recommended a limited fee award.
- The trial court adopted the frivolous-conduct finding but, citing the parties’ long, mutual history of hostile litigation and “unclean hands,” denied the Nameths’ request for attorney fees.
- Both parties appealed: Scotts (cross-appeal) challenged the frivolous-conduct finding; Nameths appealed the denial of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scotts) | Defendant's Argument (Nameths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing to prosecute a private qualified nuisance claim was frivolous under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(ii) (no basis in existing law) | Banford does not categorically require physical discomfort; pre- and some post-Banford cases (Stoll, Zang, Bullock, Nithiananthan) support a good-faith argument to extend/modify law | No reasonable attorney would pursue the claim after Banford and the prior summary-judgment opinion; Banford requires physical discomfort | Court: Scotts’ continued prosecution was frivolous under (ii); Banford governs and facts here lack the required physical discomfort |
| Whether Scotts’ factual allegations lacked evidentiary support so as to be frivolous under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(iii) | Affidavits submitted by Scotts showed physical discomfort sufficient under Banford | Scotts offered no minimal evidentiary support for physical discomfort; magistrate’s factual findings contain no such evidence | Court: Finding of frivolous conduct under (iii) affirmed; Scotts waived factual-transcript challenge and magistrate’s findings show no physical-discomfort evidence |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying attorney fees after finding frivolous conduct | Not applicable (cross-appeal focused on frivolous finding) | Trial court should have awarded attorney fees; hearing unnecessary and prior history does not justify denying fees | Court: No abuse of discretion; R.C. 2323.51 allows courts to consider any relevant evidence and to decline or limit awards; trial court reasonably denied fees given case history |
| Whether the trial court erred in holding a hearing on fees | Not raised by Scotts | Hearing was unnecessary and increased Nameths’ fees | Court: Ordering a hearing was within discretion and proper to determine frivolous conduct and any award amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 210 (2010) (nuisance recovery for annoyance/discomfort requires physical discomfort unless tied to loss of use/enjoyment of property)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (failure to include necessary portions of transcript on appeal results in presumption of validity of lower-court proceedings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)