RUTH CONAWAY v. VILLAGE OF MT. ORAB, et al.
CASE NO. CA2021-04-005
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BROWN COUNTY
11/15/2021
2021-Ohio-4041
Office of Young & Caldwell, LLC, and Tyler E. Cantrell, for appellant.
Richard L. Goettke, for appellee.
HENDRICKSON, J.
{1} Appellant, Ruth Conaway, appeals the decision of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas granting the
{2} On January 15, 2021, appellant filed a complaint asserting claims of unjust enrichment, conversion, and willful and malicious misconduct against appellees and JP Morgan Chase Bank dba Enterprise Auto Finance (“JP Morgan“). Appellant alleged that she was a registered and titled co-owner of a 2014 Nissan Murano that Gregory Conaway
{3} On February 10, 2021, appellees moved to dismiss appellant‘s complaint on the basis of
{4} Relying on the proceedings in Gregory Conaway‘s criminal case, and the fact that appellant‘s attorney in her civil suit was the same attorney who represented appellant‘s husband in his criminal proceedings, appellees argued forfeiture of the Nissan Murano had been properly conducted in accordance with
{5} Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to appellees’
{6} On March 22, 2021, the trial court granted appellees’
Mr. Conaway entered a written plea of guilty to the [OVI] charge which specified that the vehicle was to be forfeited. The February 6, 2020 Judgment Entry of Sentence provided for the forfeiture. An Entry Ordering Publication for Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle was filed on February 6, 2020. Publication was completed on February 23, 2020. Any interested party was then required to file their claim with the Court within 30 days after the
end of publication. No such claims were filed. Ruth Conaway did file a Motion for Hearing on Forfeiture with the Trial Court on April 20, 2020 in that criminal case. That motion was not timely filed, and the Court dismissed her claim without a hearing.
The court went on to state that appellant‘s counsel, who was the “same counsel who represented Gregory L. Conaway in the criminal case *** [and] endorsed the written plea of guilty which provided for forfeiture,” “now complains that [appellant] was not properly notified of the forfeiture.” The court found no merit to the claim of improper notice, stating:
The Court finds that the Village of Mt. Orab and the Mt. Orab Police Department complied with the forfeiture requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 2981.04. By failing to timely file her motion in the criminal case, Plaintiff Ruth Conaway relinquished any claim she might have in the automobile. She is now attempting to do indirectly what she failed to do directly.
The court finds that Defendants Village of Mt. Orab and Mt. Orab Police Department are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that Plaintiff‘s complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
{7} Appellant appealed the trial court‘s decision, raising the following as her sole assignment of error:
{8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANT[S]/APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS.
{9} Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting appellees’
{10} As an initial matter, we note that the trial court conflated the standard that applies when ruling on a
{11} “[While] the standards for
{12} Conversely, a
{14} Appellees moved for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that in the criminal case against Gregory Conaway all proper procedures in
After the entry of a forfeiture order under this section, the prosecutor shall attempt to identify any person with an interest in the property subject to forfeiture by searching appropriate public records and making reasonably diligent inquiries. The prosecutor shall give notice of the forfeiture that remains subject to the claims of third parties and proposed disposal of the forfeited property to any person known to have an interest in the
property. The prosecutor also shall publish notice of the forfeiture that remains subject to the claims of third parties and proposed disposal of the forfeited property once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the property was seized.
(Emphasis added.)
{15} Appellees attempted to show compliance with
{16} “[A] trial court may [only] take judicial notice of ‘appropriate matters’ in considering a
{18} Construing the allegations in the complaint as true and making all reasonable inferences in favor of appellant, as the non-moving party, we find that appellant has adequately alleged claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and willful and malicious misconduct. “Ohio is a notice-pleading state and therefore a party is not required to plead operative facts with particularity.” Adena at Miami Bluffs Condominium Owners’ Assn., Inc. v. Woodward, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-08-044, 2021-Ohio-3872, ¶ 18, citing Golden v. Milford Exempted Village School Bd. of Edn., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-10-097, 2009-Ohio-3418, ¶ 23. Rather, under
{19} An unjust enrichment claim “states that a person should not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another‘s expense and should be required to make restitution to the party suffering the loss.” RG Long & Assocs. v. Kiley, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-10-129, 2015-Ohio-2467, ¶ 14. “The party asserting a claim of unjust enrichment must demonstrate that (1) he [or she] conferred a benefit upon a defendant, (2) the defendant had knowledge of the benefit, and (3) the defendant retained the benefit under circumstances where it would be unjust to do so without payment.” Id. A conversion claim requires a plaintiff to show the defendant‘s wrongful exercise of dominion over property to the exclusion of the rights of the owner or the withholding of the property from the owner‘s possession under a claim inconsistent with her rights. Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1990). “Punitive damages may be allowed in a conversion action ‘when the conversion involves elements of fraud, malice, or insult.‘” R&S Distrib. v. Hartge Smith Nonwovens, LLC, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090100, 2010-Ohio-3992, ¶ 43, quoting Parrish v. Machlan, 131 Ohio App.3d 291, 296-297 (1st Dist.1997).
{20} Appellant‘s complaint alleged that she was a “registered and titled owner” of the 2014 Nissan Murano, which she co-owned with Gregory Conaway, and that the Mt. Orab Police Department seized and improperly converted her vehicle in April 2020 on the basis of a forfeiture interest of Gregory Conaway. She further alleged that appellees were aware that she held an interest in the vehicle but “did not follow the proper procedures in forfeiting said vehicle,” thereby unjustly enriching themselves and causing her damages. Appellant further contended she was entitled to punitive damages as appellees actions were “willful and malicious and constitute serious misconduct.” Construing these facts as true and limiting our consideration to those factual allegations contained within the complaint, as we are obligated to do when considering a
{21} The trial court erred by summarily reviewing the merits of appellant‘s causes of action and by relying on factual allegations outside the complaint. See Home Builders Assn., 2004-Ohio-4526 at ¶¶ 8, 12. “If facts beyond those alleged in the complaint are
{22} Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
Notes
The trial court did not address appellees’ immunity claim in granting theirThese defendants are shielded from any liability herein under Ohio Revised Code section 2744.03(A) which provides immunity against all of the actions alleged in the complaint. Immunity is provided for any act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function as well as any act or omission in the performance of a judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutorial function.