BRYCE SCHAFFER v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK
C.A. No. 14CA010574
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
January 26, 2015
[Cite as Schaffer v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 2015-Ohio-207.]
CARR, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 13CV181571
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Bryce Schaffer appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of appellee Huntington National Bank. This Court reverses and remands.
I.
{¶2} After his checking account with Huntington became overdrawn in excess of $1000.00, and he was unable to resolve the matter to his satisfaction through discussions with the bank, Mr. Schaffer filed suit against Huntington in which he purported to allege state common law claims for defamation, breach of contract, harassment, and extortion.1 Huntington filed an answer and a counterclaim for action on an account, seeking damages in the amount of the overdraft plus overdraft fees. The bank subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on
{¶3} Mr. Schaffer‘s amended complaint alleged claims for attempted extortion, breach of contract, harassment, violation of consent, defamation, breach of confidence, abuse of process, fraud, tortious interference, negligence, violation of
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE ERROR IN REGARD IS CLEAR AND EVIDENT; JUDGMENT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW PER THE UNITED STATES CODE AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, and relying upon federal law, Mr. Schaffer challenges the trial court‘s entry of summary judgment on the basis that it is contrary to law. Because there was no motion for summary judgment pending with regard to the amended complaint, the trial court‘s ruling must be reversed.
{¶5} The filing of an amended complaint supplants the original or any prior complaint. See Harris v. Wilkinson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-442, 2005-Ohio-6104, ¶ 2. See also
{¶6} In this case, Mr. Schaffer obtained leave of court to file his amended complaint which superseded his original complaint. Although Huntington previously filed a motion for summary judgment, it did not renew or refile its motion for summary judgment relevant to the amended complaint. Unlike the original complaint, the amended complaint alleged numerous violations by the bank of various federal laws, which allegations were absent from the original complaint.
{¶7} The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Huntington without any analysis based on its review of the “pleadings, evidence submitted and the relevant case law.” As the only pending complaint was Mr. Schaffer‘s amended complaint, filed with leave of court, the trial court necessarily granted summary judgment in favor of Huntington on Mr. Schaffer‘s claims alleged in the amended complaint. As there was no motion for summary judgment pending as to the claims alleged in the amended complaint, the trial court effectively sua sponte entered summary judgment in the bank‘s favor.
{¶8}
{¶9} Moreover, in that the amended complaint was premised on federal banking statutes, this Court here takes no position regarding whether the trial court has jurisdiction to consider those claims. We merely address the propriety of the trial court‘s award of summary judgment to Huntington and conclude that, in the absence of a motion for summary judgment in regard to Mr. Schaffer‘s pending claims, the trial court prematurely ruled in error. Mr. Schaffer‘s assignment of error is sustained.
III.
{¶10} Mr. Schaffer‘s assignment of error is sustained. This judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BRYCE SCHAFFER, pro se, Appellant.
STEPHAN M. BALES, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.