Briggs v. LinkBriggs v. Link
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Mary Briggs, pro se, appeals the January 11, 2022 judgment of the Chardon Municipal Court granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted filed by appellees, James E. Link (“Jim”), Joseph Michael Link (“Joe”) and Jennifer M. Link (“Jenny”), and denying Ms. Briggs’ motion for partial default judgment against appellees, Joe and Jenny. For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
{¶2} In March 2021, Ms. Briggs filed a complaint against all three appellees. In the original complaint, she alleges the following facts: in March 2017, Ms. Briggs needed
{¶3} Ms. Briggs had been aware that Jim had been under psychiatric care for over a decade. She asserted that in April 2019, Jim had a “major mental health breakdown.” Jim’s ability to care for himself diminished, and she began driving him to appointments and to work. At some point, Jim signed a release of medical information allowing his health information to be shared with Ms. Briggs.
{¶4} Ms. Briggs alleges that beginning in October or November 2019, Jim started lying to her and telling others lies about her. Ms. Briggs also alleged that Jim’s mental health began to deteriorate, and he became aggressive and demeaning toward her. At one point in late March 2019 Jim screamed at her and demanded she move out. Shortly thereafter, Jenny told Ms. Briggs she had 24 hours to get her belongings and move out or she would call the police. Ms. Briggs went for a long walk and when she returned, she discovered Jim had destroyed some of her possessions and thrown others away. Nevertheless, she continued to stay in the home. She alleged that Jim continued to destroy her property and she became fearful.
{¶5} Eventually, Ms. Briggs left a message with his psychiatric nurse about his worsening behavior. In mid-May 2020, Jenny came to the house angry about Ms. Briggs’ call to Jim’s nurse and handed her a written three-day notice to vacate. She did not move out at this time. Jenny called 911 in early June 2020 and made, by Ms. Briggs’ account,
{¶6} Ms. Briggs’ original complaint alleged two counts. The first, Breach of Safety and Peace and Contract, alleged: (1) that Jenny and Jim’s attempts at eviction were illegal as they were acts of retaliation for, inter alia, calling Jim’s nurse, (2) that Jenny gave Jim legal advice despite not being an attorney, and (3) that they put her health in jeopardy by not wearing masks around her. Her second count, Slander, alleged that Jenny made untrue statements about her in the police report that caused her harm, and that Jim has made “multiple false statements” about her to others causing her harm and ridicule. Ms. Briggs’ original complaint requested judgment in the amount of $15,000.00, a public apology, court costs, interest, and attorney fees.
{¶7} A month later, Ms. Briggs filed an amended complaint, adding, inter alia, that as to count one, Jim disconnected the cable from the TV, hid the TV remotes, threw out or ate her food, turned off wi-fi to prevent her from communicating with the outside world, that she became afraid to leave the house for fear of him destroying her property, and prevented her from having anyone over, including a tow truck for her car, and called the police on her when she did. As to count two, Ms. Briggs alleged that Jim “contracted with” Joe and other to make false statements, including that she had been “racially aggressive” toward an African American tow-truck driver. She also alleged that Jim called the police on her, falsely accused her of causing “trouble” with his cell phone, falsely told some people that it was her fault that his home phone did not work and told others that she had picked his locks. Finally, without explaining the context, she alleged that Jim made false statements about her while under oath. In addition to the relief she requested
{¶8} Jim filed an answer to both the original and amended complaint; Joe and Jenny filed an answer only to the amended complaint. Ms. Briggs filed a motion for default judgment against Jenny and Joe based on their failure to answer the original complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Ms. Briggs then filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint a second time. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, overruled Ms. Briggs’ objections, and denied Ms. Briggs’ motion for default judgment as moot. The court did not expressly rule on the motion for leave to amend.
{¶9} Ms. Briggs appeals pro se. Contrary to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of this court, she does not cite to specific portions of the record, only directing us to review the entire docket, and does not set forth clear statements of her assigned errors, either in the table of contents or the body of her brief. App.R. 16(A) and Loc.R. 16(C)(1) and (4). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as those litigants who retain counsel. They are not to be accorded greater rights and must accept the results of their own mistakes and errors.” R.G. Slocum Plumbing v. Wilson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2002-A-0091, 2003-Ohio-1394, ¶12. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we will review her appeal.
{¶10} Under a heading entitled First Assignment of Error, Ms. Briggs argues the lower court erred in dismissing her case before ruling on her motion for leave to amend her complaint, which she filed after her motion for partial default judgment. She asserts that had leave to amend been granted, she “may very well been able” to correct any errors in her complaint. In support, she cites only
{¶12} “
{¶13}
{¶14} While the trial court did not expressly rule on Ms. Briggs’ motion for leave to amend, we find grounds for overruling her motion did exist. Ms. Briggs’ motion for leave to amend did not include a proposed second amended complaint. Her reasons for requesting leave to amend were twofold: first, to combine her original and amended complaints; second, to bolster her argument with additional examples of appellees’ behavior to further address the issues she already raised. As to the first, it appears from the record that the parties and court were treating her amended complaint as if it incorporated her original complaint. Second, additional, similar examples of the defendants’ behavior would be inconsequential. Thus, we cannot agree that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for leave to amend her complaint a second time. Nevertheless, as discussed below, we find the trial court erred in granting the dismissal of Ms. Briggs’ complaint as it related to Jim Link.
{¶15} An appellate court reviews a lower court’s order granting a
{¶16} Furthermore, according to
{¶17} In her complaint, Ms. Briggs alleged that Jim told others false statement about her including, for example, allegations that Ms. Briggs picked his locks, threatened him, was “racially aggressive” toward an African American person, made a false police report regarding her involvement in the problems with his phones, and lied about her while under oath. Additionally, Ms. Briggs alleged that Jim had destroyed her property while she was out of the house. Some of these statements, taken as true, could plausibly constitute claims of defamation or tortious destruction of property, respectively. Because Ms. Briggs pleaded sufficient facts to put Jim on notice of the claims against him, the trial court erred in dismissing her action against Jim Link.
{¶18} Her first assigned error has some merit.
{¶19} Under her Second Assignment of Error section, Ms. Briggs states that the lower court erred in dismissing her case after not ruling on her motion for partial default judgment “in a timely manner.” In support, she cites only
{¶20} Ms. Briggs filed her motion for partial default judgment on September 17, 2021. Defendants, Joe and Jenny, filed a brief in opposition on September 22, 2021. Ms. Briggs filed an answer to the defendants’ brief in opposition on October 2, 2021. The court ruled on the motion for partial default judgment on January 11, 2022. Initially, we note that the civil rules do not provide a time by which a trial court must rule on a motion for default judgment. Moreover, we do not find that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s ruling on the motion within three months of the filing of the parties’
{¶21} Her second assigned error is without merit.
{¶22} Under her Third assignment of Error heading, she states only that the lower court erred in dismissing her case because it “took misleading information from the defendant’s attorney.” She does not elaborate on her argument, state what misleading information the trial court relied on, or cite any rule or law.
{¶23} “An appellant ‘bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal.’” Tally v. Patrick, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2008-T-0072, 2009-Ohio-1831, ¶22, quoting S. Russell v. Upchurch, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 2001-G-2395 and 2001-G-2396, 2003-Ohio-2099, ¶10 and App.R. 16(A)(7). “‘It is not the obligation of an appellate court to search for authority to support an appellant’s argument as to an alleged error. See Kremer v. Cox, [114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60 (9th Dist.1996)] * * *. Furthermore, if an argument exists that can support appellant’s assignments of error, “it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’ Harris v. Nome, 9th Dist. [Summit] No. 21071, 2002-Ohio-6994.”’” Tally, supra. Accordingly, we may disregard an assignment of error that fails to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7).
{¶24} Ms. Briggs’ third assigned error is without merit.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,
FREDERICK D. NELSON, J., Ret., Tenth Appellate District, sitting by assignment,
concur.