Bunting v. Watts , 2018 Ohio 3357 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Bunting v. Watts, 
    2018-Ohio-3357
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    STARK COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    PAUL EDWARD BUNTING                           :     JUDGES:
    :     Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
    Plaintiff - Appellant                 :     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
    :     Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
    -vs-                                          :
    :
    MARY AND GREG WATTS                           :     Case No. 2018CA00065
    :
    Defendants - Appellees                :     OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Stark County Court
    of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017
    CV 01240
    JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   August 20, 2018
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellant                             For Defendant-Appellees
    PAUL EDWARD BUNTING, pro se                         JONATHAN E. MORRIS
    c/o Volunteers of America (VOA)                     Courtyard Centre, Suite 418
    Residential Reentry Program                         116 Cleveland Avenue, NW
    921 North Main Street                               Canton, Ohio 44702
    Mansfield, Ohio 44903
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                 2
    Baldwin, J.
    {¶1}    Appellant, Paul E. Bunting, appeals the Stark County Court of Common
    Pleas dismissal of his complaint for declaratory judgment entered July 31, 2017.
    Appellees are Mary and Greg Watts.
    STATE OF FACTS AND THE CASE
    {¶2} This matter was recently before us on an appeal of a dismissal of the
    complaint by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Bunting v. Watts, 5th Dist. Stark
    No. 2017CA00161, 
    2017-Ohio-9121
    . We will adopt the facts set forth in that opinion for
    the purposes of this decision.
    {¶3}    On or about March 27, 2008, Mary Jane Bunting became ill and was
    hospitalized. Ms. Bunting had two children, Appellant and appellee Mary Watts. On April
    1, 2008, Ms. Bunting granted her daughter a durable unlimited power of attorney to handle
    her affairs. On April 4, 2008, appellee Mary Watts, by virtue of her power of attorney,
    transferred Ms. Bunting's prefab manufactured modular home to her husband, appellee
    Greg Watts. Ms. Bunting passed away on April 5, 2008. The power of attorney and quit
    claim deed were recorded on April 9, 2008.
    {¶4}    On June 19, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se complaint for declaratory
    judgment against his sister and her husband. Appellant sought a declaration from the trial
    court regarding the validity of the power of attorney and the subsequent conveyance of
    Ms. Bunting's real property. Appellant claimed his sister obtained the power of attorney
    from his mother through fraud, arguing the notary acknowledged the signatures on April
    3, 2008, two days after the signing. Appellant also claimed his sister engaged in illegal
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                 3
    self-dealing in transferring Ms. Bunting's real property to her husband instead of filing
    decedent's estate in probate, and as a result, was unjustly enriched. Appellant further
    claimed that his sister used the power of attorney "as a weapon to cease and desist all
    medical life-support to purposefully cause the death of Decedent." Attached to the
    complaint were copies of the power of attorney and the quitclaim deed.
    {¶5}    On July 11, 2017, Appellees filed a pro se answer and requested a
    dismissal of the case, stating in part Appellant has been trying to sue them for over nine
    years from prison and there was no monetary gain after bills and the funeral expenses
    were paid. Attached to their answer were copies of judgment entries dismissing
    complaints Appellant had filed in 2008 (Case Nos. 2008CV02544 and 2008CV04511).
    {¶6}    By judgment entry filed July 31, 2017, the trial court dismissed the case
    pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in accordance with the cited case law therein, that
    being,"[d]ismissal is appropriate where it appears beyond doubt that the complaining
    party can prove no set of facts in support of the complaining party's claim that would
    entitle said party to relief."
    {¶7}    Appellant filed an appeal and submitted three assignments of error. We held
    that the trial court dismissed the complaint prematurely and denied Appellant the
    opportunity to amend his complaint under Civ.R. 15(B). We reversed the trial court’s
    decision and remanded the matter to the court for further proceedings consistent with our
    opinion.
    {¶8}    Upon remand, the trial court issued an order setting a dispositive motion
    briefing schedule on January 9, 2018. On January 16, 2018 Appellant filed an “Amended
    Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” naming Appellees as defendants. Appellees,
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                 4
    through counsel, filed an answer on February 16, 2018, a motion to dismiss pursuant to
    Civ.R. 12 (B)(6) on February 20, 2018 and a motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint
    and motion for leave to plead on February 22, 2018. Appellant filed a document captioned
    “Dispositive Summary of the Terms on the Questions of Law for Declaratory Judgment
    Order Briefing Schedule” on February 21, 2018. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion
    for leave to plead but denied their motion to strike the amended complaint. On February
    23, 2018 Appellees filed an amended answer and counterclaim seeking to have Appellant
    declared a vexatious litigator. On March 14, 2018 Appellant filed a request for an
    extension of time to respond to the pleadings filed by Appellees and that motion was
    granted, extending the deadline for Appellant’s response to March 30, 2018. Appellant
    filed a “Plaintiffs Reply Brief and Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaim, Both
    Answers and Their Motion to Dismiss” on March 26, 2018 attached to a “Motion for Leave
    to File Instanter Reply Brief and Strike.”
    {¶9}   On April 17, 2018 the trial court granted Appellees motion to dismiss and,
    on May 17, 2018 Appellant filed a notice of appeal and submitted the following
    assignments of error:
    {¶10} “I. THE DECLARATORY COURT ABUSED ITS UNRUTHORIZED
    DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE DECLARATORY COMPLAINT IN FAILING TO
    CONPLY WITH STATUTORY MANDATES OF THE RC 2721.05 TO DETERMINE THE
    RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND ANY OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS REGARDING
    THE VALIDITY OF THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT DURABLE UNLIMITED POWER OF
    ATTORNEY         INSTRUMENT'S         NOTARIAL      ACKNOWLEDGMENT             AND     IT
    DETRIMENTAL ENSUED EFFECTS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF PROPERTY (SIC).”
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                    5
    {¶11} “II. THE DECLARATORY JUDGE PERSONALLY CREATED PARTIALITY
    AND ACTED BIAS BY ADOPTING THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' ERRONEOUS
    PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE ISSUES REGARDING FACT WHEN THER EIS NOE
    TO BE LITIGATED BY A JURY (SIC).”
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    {¶12} Our standard of review on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is de novo.
    Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 
    49 Ohio St.3d 228
    , 
    551 N.E.2d 981
     (1990). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
    granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v.
    Guernsey County Board of Commissioners, 
    65 Ohio St.3d 545
    , 
    605 N.E.2d 378
     (1992).
    Under a de novo analysis, we must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true
    and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Byrd v.
    Faber, 
    57 Ohio St.3d 56
    , 
    565 N.E.2d 584
     (1991).
    {¶13} A trial court should dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim on which
    relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) only when it appears “beyond doubt * *
    * that the [plaintiff] can prove no set of facts warranting relief.” State ex rel. Crabtree v.
    Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health (1997), 
    77 Ohio St.3d 247
    , 248, 
    673 N.E.2d 1281
    . The court
    may look only to the complaint itself, and no evidence or allegation outside the complaint,
    when ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander (1997), 
    79 Ohio St.3d 206
    , 
    680 N.E.2d 985
    . Nevertheless, the court may consider material incorporated
    in the complaint as part of the complaint. State ex rel. Keller v. Cox (1999), 
    85 Ohio St.3d 279
    , 
    707 N.E.2d 931
    . Even so, because Ohio has rejected “fact pleading” in favor of
    “notice pleading,” a plaintiff is not required to prove his or her case through the pleadings
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                         6
    in the complaint, since the plaintiff's lack of access to relevant evidence at that stage of
    the proceedings would allow dismissal of many valid claims. York v. Ohio State Hwy.
    Patrol (1991), 
    60 Ohio St.3d 143
    , 
    573 N.E.2d 1063
    .
    {¶14} Appellant filed a “Motion for in Favor of Appellant Because the Appellees
    Failed to File a Brief on July 18, 2018.” While Appellant correctly notes that Appellees
    did not file a brief, he incorrectly concludes he is entitled to the relief requested. Appellate
    Rule 18(C) states that:
    “[i] appellee fails to file the appellee's brief within the time provided by this
    rule, or within the time as extended, the appellee will not be heard at oral
    argument except by permission of the court upon a showing of good cause
    submitted in writing prior to argument; and in determining the appeal, the
    court may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as
    correct and reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to
    sustain such action.”
    {¶15} We choose to proceed with a de novo review of the complaint and to issue
    a ruling accordingly.
    ANALYSIS
    {¶16} In order to maintain an action for declaratory judgment, a party must
    demonstrate that a real controversy exists between the parties, that the controversy is
    justiciable in character, and that speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the
    parties. Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 
    34 Ohio St.2d 93
    , 97, 
    296 N.E.2d 261
     (1973). All three requirements must be met in order for declaratory relief to be proper.
    
    Id.
     Huntsman v. State, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2016CA00206, 
    2017-Ohio-2622
    , ¶ 24.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                  7
    {¶17} Appellant complains of actions completed by Appellees in 2008 including
    the execution of a power of attorney and use of the power of attorney to convey and sell
    real property, among other things. In a rather demanding statement, Appellant asserts in
    his Amended Complaint that:
    2. This Court shall declare the statutory validity of the attached instruments
    titled "Unlimited Durable Power-Of-Attorney" ("POA" henceforth) marked as
    Exhibit-A, and the "Quit-Claim Deed"("DEED" herein) marked as Exhibit-B.
    3. This Court shall determine and establish the parties' rights, status, and
    legal positions prescribed by the RC Chapter 2721, and enter a declaratory
    verdict on the questions of law.
    (Amended Complaint, p. 2, Jan. 16, 2018).
    {¶18} Attached to the complaint is a document captioned "Affidavit for Declaratory
    Relief of Declarant Paul Edward Bunting,” a document captioned “Durable Unlimited
    Power of Attorney,” a quit claim deed, and an affidavit of indigency. Appellant also filed a
    document captioned “Plaintiffs Dispositive Summary of the Terms on the Questions of
    Law for Declaratory Judgment Order Briefing Schedule” which essentially provides a
    history of the litigation beginning with the complaint filed by Appellant on June 19, 2017
    and argument. Because the matter before us is the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to
    Civ.R.12 (b)(6) we may consider exhibits incorporated into the complaint, State ex rel.
    Keller, supra, but we are prohibited from considering the latter document because it is
    outside the four corners of the complaint. However, even if we were to consider the
    document and the argument therein, our resolution of this matter would not change.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                                      8
    {¶19} To state a claim for declaratory judgment, Appellant must allege facts to
    show “speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.” Burger Brewing
    Co., supra.    Appellant's complaint does not meet that third element for a declaratory
    judgment because it does not allege the speedy relief afforded by a declaratory action is
    necessary to preserve whatever rights might be lost. We have reviewed the complaint
    closely and we are unable to even draw an inference from any of the facts alleged in the
    complaint that speedy relief is necessary to preserve the status of the parties. Based upon
    the facts alleged in the complaint and the attached exhibits, it is evident that all the actions
    about which Appellant complains occurred in April 2008 or very shortly thereafter and the
    damage, if any, has occurred. Mansfield Plumbing Products LLC v. Estate of Sparks, 5th
    Dist. Richland No. 2004-CA-0094, 
    2005-Ohio-3121
    , ¶¶ 17-18.
    {¶20} We find the complaint does not set forth all of the elements of a declaratory
    judgment action, and for this reason, the trial court reached the correct result in dismissing
    the complaint.
    Stark County, Case No. 2018CA00065                                             9
    {¶21} Appellant’s assignments of error are overruled and the ruling of the Stark
    County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    By: Baldwin, J.
    Delaney, P.J. and
    Hoffman, J. concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2018CA00065

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 3357

Judges: Baldwin

Filed Date: 8/20/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2018