Court Opinion

ID: 9927140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 14:07:45.541339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:56.572832
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Robertson v. Meyers, 2024-Ohio-270.]

                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 SHAWN ROBERTSON,                               :   APPEAL NO. C-230257
                                                    TRIAL NO. A-2202742
         Petitioner-Appellant,                  :

   vs.                                          :      O P I N I O N.

 L. PAMELA MEYERS,                              :

         Respondent-Appellee.                   :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 26, 2024

Finney Law Firm, Christopher P. Finney, Casey A. Jones, Bradley M. Gibson, Jessica
D. Gibson and Isaac T. Heintz, for Petitioner-Appellant,

Trenz & Knabe Co., LPA, and Alan R. Trenz, for Respondent-Appellee.
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}   Petitioner-appellant Shawn Robertson appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for discovery. In a

single assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his

petition because the allegations in the petition—which the court must take as true—

meet the requirements of Civ.R. 34(D). For the following reasons, we sustain the

assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the law.

                         I. Factual and Procedural History

       {¶2}   Petitioner filed a Civ.R. 34(D) petition for discovery, seeking discovery

from respondent-appellee L. Pamela Meyers. The petition alleges that respondent

became the acting trustee of the Patricia L. Robertson Living Trust (“the trust”) upon

Ms. Robertson’s death on January 11, 2021.        Petitioner—one of three residuary

beneficiaries under the trust—asserts in the petition that Ms. Robertson—his mother—

told him prior to her death that the proceeds from the sale of her home—

approximately $200,000—were in a checking account held with U.S. Bank. The home

was allegedly held by the trust and sold two months prior to Ms. Robertson’s passing.

Petitioner asserts in the petition that it was his understanding—based on

conversations with his mother—that such proceeds were intended to be included

within the trust and distributed accordingly. Yet, the proceeds were not included

within the trust distribution. Accordingly, the petition requests information regarding

the U.S. Bank account to ascertain the identity of any potential joint account holders

and/or individuals who may have acted adversely to the wishes of his mother and the

interest of the trust for purposes of bringing a potential cause of action based on the

exclusion of the proceeds from the trust distribution. More specifically, the petition

                                              2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

requested “statements or other documents showing the titling and account number of

any cash account that was not included in the distribution of the Trust in which Ms.

Robertson had an interest as of the date of her death.”

       {¶3}    The trust—which was attached and incorporated into the petition—

shows that Ms. Robertson transferred:

               all my right, title, and interest in and to all of my property that

       may legally be held in trust and that may be transferred to my trust by

       this assignment. This assignment includes all of my real, personal,

       tangible, and intangible property located in the United States, whether

       separate property or community property, and whether acquired before

       or after the execution of this instrument, except for these assets that are

       expressly not transferred by this instrument * * *.

The trust also shows that petitioner was to receive one third of the “remaining trust

property (not distributed under prior Articles of [the trust]).” The trust became

irrevocable upon death.        Additionally, a trustee’s deed—also attached and

incorporated into the petition—shows that real property of the trust was sold on

October 28, 2020, for $229,000. Lastly, an affidavit of petitioner—which was again

attached and incorporated into the petition—avers that petitioner requested the

information from respondent and/or respondent’s counsel on two separate occasions

to no avail.

       {¶4}    Respondent moved to dismiss the petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6),

arguing that petitioner was not entitled to the requested information as the trust—

which was revocable prior to Ms. Robertson’s death—has been fully administered and

all residuary beneficiaries have received an identical amount under the trust. In other

words, the motion argued that all trust assets have been distributed and petitioner is

                                               3
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

not entitled to information on nontrust assets. Further, the motion asserted that

respondent had no right—in her capacity as trustee—to release any information on any

joint account, should one exist, as the account would not be an asset subject to her

supervision as trustee.

       {¶5}    After responsive briefing and oral argument, the trial court ultimately

granted the motion to dismiss, finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden under

Civ.R. 34(D) as the petition was based on “a large amount of speculation.” Petitioner

now appeals.

                                 II. Law and Analysis

       {¶6}    We review the trial court’s decision on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to

dismiss a petition for discovery de novo. TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-220323, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 9-12. When ruling on a motion to dismiss

a petition for discovery, the trial court must accept all factual allegations in the

pleading as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and

find that it appears, beyond doubt, that the petitioner can prove no set of facts entitling

him or her to recovery. Id. at ¶ 12, citing Fry v. City of Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-210482, 2022-Ohio-1248.

       {¶7}    Civ.R. 34(D) permits “a person who claims to have a potential cause of

action” to file a petition to obtain discovery in accordance with the rule.

               Prior to filing a petition for discovery, the person seeking

       discovery shall make reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the

       information from the person from whom the discovery is sought. The

       petition shall be captioned in the name of the person seeking discovery

       and be filed in the court of common pleas in the county in which the

       person from whom the discovery is sought resides, the person’s

                                                4
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       principal place of business is located, or the potential action may be

       filed. The petition shall include all of the following:

           (a) A statement of the subject matter of the petitioner’s potential

               cause of action and the petitioner’s interest in the potential cause

               of action;

           (b) A statement of the efforts made by the petitioner to obtain

               voluntarily the information from the person from whom the

               discovery is sought;

           (c) A statement or description of the information sought to be

               discovered with reasonable particularity;

           (d) The name and addresses, if known, of any person the petitioner

               expects will be an adverse party in the potential action;

           (e) A request that the court issue an order authorizing the petitioner

               to obtain the discovery.

Civ.R. 34(D)(1).

       {¶8}    The court must issue and authorize the petitioner to obtain the

discovery if the court finds all the following:

       (a) The discovery is necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential

           adverse party;

       (b) The petitioner is otherwise unable to bring the contemplated action;

       (c) The petitioner made reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the

           information from the person from whom the discovery is sought.

Civ.R. 34(D)(3).

       {¶9}    This rule is “designed ‘to avoid needlessly joining as defendants non-

liable parties who may have valuable information.’ ” TILR Corp., 1st Dist. Hamilton

                                                  5
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

No. C-220323, 2023-Ohio-1345, at ¶ 13, quoting Cruz v. Kettering Health Network,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24465, 2012-Ohio-24, ¶ 30. While presuit document

requests must assist in the identification of a potential adverse party, the existence of

a known adverse party is not fatal to a party attempting to ascertain additional

potential adverse parties. Id. at ¶ 16, citing In re F.D. Johnson Co., 11th Dist. Lake No.

2018-L-009, 2018-Ohio-4803, ¶ 23. Rather, courts have adopted a more reasonable

interpretation of the rule, requiring that the discovery “ ‘must be necessary to ascertain

the identity of an adverse party, regardless of how many known adverse parties

exist.’ ” Id., citing Cruz at ¶ 23.

       {¶10} Here, taking all allegations in the petition as true, petitioner alleged

facts sufficient to meet the requirements of Civ.R. 34(D). Petitioner stated the subject

matter of his potential cause of action: misappropriation of account funds or trust

assets in which he may have an interest. He made a statement of the efforts to obtain

the information voluntarily: two requests to respondent and/or respondent’s counsel

to no avail. He stated what information he sought with reasonable particularity:

account statements from the account in which his mother had an interest, which no

one challenges as unidentifiable. He identified the respondent as a possible adverse

party, either in her capacity as trustee or as a potential joint account holder. Lastly,

he requested that the court authorize him to obtain “statements or other documents

showing the titling and account number of any cash account that was not included in

the distribution of the [t]rust in which Ms. Robertson had an interest as of the date of

her death.”

       {¶11} Further, the allegations show that the requested discovery is necessary

to ascertain the identity of any individual who may have had an interest in or access to

the account that may be an adverse party. The allegations further show that discovery

                                                6
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

is also necessary to bring the contemplated action as plaintiff does not know if the

alleged misappropriation was done by the respondent in relation to the trust, the

respondent in her personal capacity as a potential joint account holder, or by another

unknown individual in association with the account and unrelated to the trust. Lastly,

the allegations show that petitioner attempted to obtain the information voluntarily

from respondent and/or her counsel on two separate occasions. Petitioner claims that

respondent is the individual likely to have such information as she was the trustee of

the trust and a potential joint account holder of the bank account as Ms. Robertson’s

sister.

          {¶12} Based on all the foregoing, we hold that petitioner alleged facts

sufficient to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss in relation to his petition for

discovery under Civ.R. 34(D). Therefore, we sustain the assignment of error and

reverse the judgment of the trial court.

                                      III. Conclusion

          {¶13} Having sustained the assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of

the trial court and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion and the law.

          {¶14} We note that, “ ‘once the plaintiff has passed the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) hurdle,

discovery should proceed according to the civil rules, and the trial court enjoys broad

discretion to decide if matters are privileged or are otherwise proper subjects for

discovery.’ ” TILR Corp., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220323, 2023-Ohio-1345, at ¶ 12,

quoting Wheeler v. Girvin, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-980302, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS

1568, 12 (Apr. 9, 1999).

                                               Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

BOCK and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

                                                 7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Please note:

       The court has recorded its own entry this date.

                                             8