Shaw v. Aberdeen
2016 Ohio 8229
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Gerald W. Shaw owns a vacant building in the Village of Aberdeen and alleges he had the water to the building turned off after a 2013 leak and received no water or services thereafter.
- In Oct–Dec 2015 Shaw received bills for water, sewer, and sanitation charges for periods Aug–Nov 2015, including carryover balances and late fees; he disputed the bills and asked the mayor to stop collection efforts.
- Shaw sued (Dec. 29, 2015), asserting the Village and individual officials conspired under color of official right to extort money by enforcing an ordinance that charges for services not provided; he alleged fraudulent documents and sought a cease-and-desist, compensatory and punitive damages.
- The Village moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C); Shaw also moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court denied Shaw’s motion and granted the Village’s motion, dismissing the complaint.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District reviewed the Civ.R. 12(C) grant de novo, construing complaint allegations in Shaw’s favor and limiting review to the pleadings and attached writings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shaw stated a viable cause of action (conspiracy/extortion/fraud) based on billing and ordinance enforcement | Shaw: bills and ordinance enforcement were part of a criminal conspiracy to extort money and involved fraudulent documents | Village: available-for-use fees and applicable ordinances are lawful; Shaw’s allegations are conclusory and lack required specificity | Court: Dismissed — Shaw pled no set of facts entitling him to relief; claims are vague/conclusory and fail Civ.R. 9(B) specificity requirements |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings for the Village | Shaw: trial court wrongly denied his Civ.R. 12(C) motion and improperly granted Village’s motion | Village: judgment on pleadings proper because even construed favorably Shaw’s pleadings cannot support relief | Court: No error — judgment on the pleadings affirmed; legal review limited to pleadings and reasonable inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeside Utilities Corp. v. Barnum, 5 Ohio St.3d 99 (1983) (upholding permissibility of available-for-use fees for water systems)
- Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, 106 Ohio St.3d 412 (2005) (pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party on Civ.R. 12(C) review)
- Avery v. Rossford, 145 Ohio App.3d 155 (2001) (conspiracy and fraud claims must meet specificity requirements; Civ.R. 9(B) applies)