2020 Ohio 4332
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Williams received a City of Dayton water bill and, instead of paying cash or check, mailed self‑prepared “international bills of exchange” drawn on the U.S. Department of the Treasury for the bill amounts.
- The City refused to accept those documents as payment; Williams then received a disconnect notice and mailed a second similar instrument.
- Williams sued the City in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, asserting the City should have accepted the instruments as legal tender and citing 12 U.S.C. § 95a and several Ohio statutes.
- The City moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the instruments were not legitimate negotiable instruments and noting authorities rejecting similar “redemption” schemes.
- The trial court granted the motion, finding the self‑prepared bills were not valid legal tender and noting 12 U.S.C. § 95a was no longer operative. Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of self‑prepared “international bill of exchange” as legal tender/negotiable instrument | Williams: the instruments were valid payment for his water bills | City: instruments are illegitimate, non‑negotiable, and essentially worthless paper; courts reject redemptionist documents | Court: instruments are not legal tender or negotiable instruments; dismissal affirmed |
| Statutory basis (12 U.S.C. § 95a) | Williams relied on § 95a to support acceptance of Treasury‑drawn instruments | City and court: § 95a has been omitted and is not a valid basis for relief | Court: § 95a is no longer operative; cannot support Williams’s claim |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Williams invoked R.C. provisions and presented the instruments as attached exhibits | City: allegations are legal conclusions unsupported by fact; attached instruments defeat claim as a matter of law | Court: even accepting pleaded facts, plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts entitling him to relief; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (summarizes and critiques the “redemptionist” strawman theory)
- Bryant v. Washington Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753 (W.D. Va. 2007) (rejects Treasury‑drawn redemption instruments as baseless and warns of criminal consequences)
- McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2010) (explains redemptionist theory and rejects its legal efficacy)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Phillips, 852 N.E.2d 380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (holds similar self‑created bills of exchange are not valid payment)