Weaver v. Pillar, 2013 Ohio 1052

Pillar owns NC G/Red Hill Crane; Weaver/Paisley rented equipment fall 2008; payment dispute arose.
Pillar previously convicted of telecommunications harassment (Aug 2009) and theft (Aug 2010) related to removing Weaver’s wood chipper.
Weaver/Paisley sued Pillar for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and defamation; Pillar moved for summary judgment; default denial due to lack of response.
Trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs; this court later affirmed on appeal in 2012.
Pillar moved for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51; trial court awarded $1,000 in attorney fees and denied relief under Rule 60(B); Guinn appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found frivolous conduct under ORC 2323.51	Guinn argues claims were not frivolous; some claims lacked merit but were supported by law	Pillar contends some claims were frivolous and caused adverse effects	Frivolous conduct not shown for the claims; issue reversed
Whether Pillar was adversely affected by defending the frivolous conduct	Pillar was harmed by litigation costs specifically tied to frivolous claims	No clear evidence the fees were directly caused by frivolous conduct	Court found lack of evidence that Pillar was adversely affected; no award upheld on this basis
Whether trial court erred in awarding only $1,000 in fees and in denying relief for Rule 60(B)	Fees were reasonably incurred and should exceed $1,000; sanctions warranted	Fees were general defense costs, not directly tied to frivolous conduct;$1,000 adequate	Reversed as to frivolous conduct; no need to remand for precise allocation; Guinn’s assignment reversed

Ferron v. Video Professor Inc., 2009-Ohio-3133 (5th Dist. No. 08-CAE-09-0055, 2009-Ohio-3133) (three-step sanctions analysis; frivolous conduct defined; de novo review of legal conclusions)
Riston v. Butler, 149 Ohio App.3d 390 (2002-Ohio-2308) (legal groundlessness reviewed de novo; abuse of discretion for factual findings)
Wiltberger v. Davis, 110 Ohio App.3d 46 (10th Dist. 1996) (approach to determining whether conduct is frivolous; deference to factual findings)
Lable & Co. v. Flowers, 104 Ohio App.3d 227 (9th Dist. 1995) (lawyer’s good-faith arguments can render claims non-frivolous)
Sustin v. Fee, 69 Ohio St.2d 143 (1982) (invasion of privacy standard; highly offensive intrusion)
Akron-Canton Waste Oil, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Oil Serv. Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 591 (9th Dist. 1992) (lead-in for defamation and related claims; standards for damages)
Hickman v. Murray, (cited) (1996) (principles on frivolousness and legal arguments)