Sullinger v. Sullinger, 2020 Ohio 5225

March 26, 2017: Don, as attorney-in-fact for Joan Sullinger, executed a life-based lease of the Silver Creek farm to Doug and Kathy Reed that continued during Joan’s life and terminated by specified rules upon her death.
Joan died November 28, 2018; Douglas (who inherited an undivided one-half interest) filed suit April 16, 2019 asserting forcible entry and detainer, slander of title, quiet title, rescission, declaratory judgment, and a statutory joint-tenant duty claim.
Don and the Reeds answered, lodged counterclaims, and Don moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the parties were later permitted to introduce evidence at a January 8, 2020 hearing.
The trial court considered evidence beyond the pleadings (including that the Reeds were no longer farming or in possession), effectively converted the dismissal motion to summary judgment, and dismissed Douglas’s amended complaint (mooting possession-based claims and finding failure of proof on slander-of-title and the joint-tenant claim).
On appeal the Third District reviewed de novo, held the conversion to summary judgment was either invited or harmless because Douglas had opportunity to present evidence and briefs, and affirmed dismissal — principally because Douglas failed to demonstrate actual or special damages for slander of title.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could grant relief to the Reeds when they had not separately moved for dismissal	Douglas: Relief in favor of one defendant cannot be granted on behalf of another who did not request it	Defendants: Don’s motion and the record addressed claims against all defendants; Reeds participated and supplied evidence/briefs	Court: No error — summary judgment framework and participation supplied adequate basis to grant relief to Reeds
Whether trial court sua sponte dismissed claims without notice or opportunity to respond	Douglas: Court acted sua sponte and denied notice/response opportunity	Defendants: Court either converted motion with parties’ knowledge/invitation or any lack of formal notice was harmless because parties presented evidence and post-hearing briefs	Court: No error — conversion was invited/harmless and Douglas had full opportunity to respond
Whether dismissal of slander-of-title claim was improper	Douglas: Reeds and Don falsely asserted a lease and impaired his title/interests	Defendants: Douglas failed to prove an essential element (actual or special pecuniary damages)	Court: No error — Douglas offered no proof of actual or special damages; summary judgment proper

State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 1998) (trial court considering materials outside pleadings must convert a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to Civ.R. 56 and give notice)
Petrey v. Simon, 4 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1983) (conversion of a Rule 12(B)(6) motion into summary judgment requires notice and opportunity to respond)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment burden-shifting framework and the nonmovant’s duty to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue)
Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (de novo appellate review standard for dismissal/summary judgment issues)
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2002) (de novo appellate standard and civil procedure principles)
Ohio Gov’t. Risk Mgmt. Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 2007) (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, 111 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2006) (definition of actual damages)
Stokes v. Meimaris, 111 Ohio App.3d 176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (special damages must be specially pleaded and proven)
Gennari v. Andres-Tucker Funeral Home, 21 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1986) (special damages do not follow as a necessary consequence and must be proven)
Sabol v. Richmond Hts. Gen. Hosp., 111 Ohio App.3d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (moving party must inform court of basis of summary judgment motion and cannot rely on conclusory assertions)