2026-Ohio-813
Ohio Ct. App. 1st2026Background
- Walker sued Chase after Chase denied her online credit-card application and retained the personal information she submitted. 1
- Her amended complaint asserted implied contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and declaratory judgment claims. 2
- The complaint alleged Chase used her data in internal risk and compliance processes without giving her any reciprocal benefit. 3
- The trial court granted Chase’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, and Walker appealed. 4
- The court reviewed the dismissal de novo under Ohio notice-pleading standards. 5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied-in-fact contract from credit application 6 | Walker said Chase’s processing and retention of her data created a contract. | Chase said no facts showed mutual assent or any promise. | No implied-in-fact contract was plausibly alleged. 7 |
| Unjust enrichment based on retained data 8 | Walker claimed her data conferred a monetizable benefit on Chase. | Chase said the benefit allegation was conclusory and unsupported. | Unjust enrichment claim failed for lack of a pleaded benefit. 9 |
| Conversion of personal information 10 | Walker argued Chase wrongfully exercised dominion over her data. | Chase said it lawfully received the data and Walker alleged no demand and refusal. | Conversion claim properly dismissed. 11 |
| Breach of fiduciary duty 12 | Walker claimed special circumstances created a fiduciary duty. | Chase said no fiduciary relationship or undertaking existed. | No fiduciary duty was alleged. 13 |
| Constructive fraud, declaratory judgment, and accounting 14 | Walker said Chase had a duty to disclose and a live controversy existed. | Chase said no duty, no controversy, and accounting is only a remedy. | All remaining claims were properly dismissed. 15 |
Key Cases Cited
- Twang, LLC v. City of Cincinnati, 2024-Ohio-6077 (1st Dist. 2024) (de novo review of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal 16)
- Brendamour v. City of the Village of Indian Hill, 2022-Ohio-4724 (1st Dist. 2022) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint and dismissal is proper when no set of facts supports recovery 17)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (dismissal standard for failure to state a claim 18)
- Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1989) (distinguishes express, implied-in-fact, and quasi-contract 19)
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Krehnbrink, 2025-Ohio-4445 (1st Dist. 2025) (elements of breach of contract 20)
- Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-4363 (Ohio 2022) (definition of conversion 21)
- Cohen v. Estate of Cohen, 23 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 1986) (constructive fraud is a breach of legal or equitable duty and does not require fraudulent intent 22)