Court Opinion

ID: 9966243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 15:10:33.733864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:59.825741
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Simpson v. Moreland, 2024-Ohio-1728.]

                                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                         TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                         BUTLER COUNTY

 DEBBIE SIMPSON,                                 :
                                                       CASE NO. CA2023-10-116
        Appellant,                               :
                                                              OPINION
                                                 :             5/6/2024
     - vs -
                                                 :

 NOEL MORELAND, et al.,                          :

        Appellees.                               :

        CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. CV 2023 05 1022

Debbie Simpson, pro se.

Combs, Schaefer, Ball & Little, and Nathan M. Little, for appellee, Noel Moreland.

        M. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Debbie Simpson, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court

of Common Pleas dismissing, with prejudice, her complaint against appellees, Noel

Moreland and Tina Martin.

        {¶ 2} On May 17, 2023, Simpson, acting pro se, filed a complaint in the trial court

against Moreland, Martin, and Legalcorp Solutions, LLC. The complaint alleged that
                                                                    Butler CA2023-10-116

Simpson owns the residential property known as 3108 Buttercup Court, Middletown,

Ohio, and that Moreland owns the adjacent residential property known as 3104 Buttercup

Court, Middletown, Ohio. The complaint refers to an access/driveway easement across

a portion of Simpson's property benefitting Moreland's property. The complaint further

alleged that Moreland claims his property line runs through the southeast corner of

Simpson's property based upon a land survey of his property, and that he has threatened

Simpson, "I own part of your property and if you want to move your house you can."

Simpson attached to her complaint a cease-and-desist letter she posted on Moreland's

front door, a copy of the duly recorded driveway easement, and a copy of the 1998

approved plat/survey depicting the driveway easement. Simpson's complaint claimed

that Moreland's survey "calls into question and raises doubt about the boundaries

associated with the ACCESS/DRIVEWAY EASEMENT survey of Lot 18894 [Moreland's

lot]." Based upon the foregoing, Simpson sought an emergency injunction prohibiting

Moreland's access and use of the driveway easement until the boundary dispute was

resolved.

       {¶ 3} Regarding Martin, Simpson's complaint suggested collusion or misconduct

in the original creation of the driveway easement based upon the family relationships of

those involved. Specifically, Simpson alleged that (1) the easement was granted by

Martin Realty, Inc., executed by its president Orville Martin, and notarized by Scott Martin

in the fall of 2000, (2) there is an undefined relationship between Moreland and members

of the Martin family and Martin has refused to state if she has familial relations with the

Martin family, and (3) Simpson "is concerned that the Martin family is connected to old

money and may sway this court. Plaintiff prays this is not the case."

       {¶ 4} Moreland moved to dismiss Simpson's complaint against him pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Martin likewise filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Simpson's

                                             -2-
                                                                       Butler CA2023-10-116

complaint. In response to the motions, Simpson filed several pleadings. On September

20, 2023, a magistrate held a non-evidentiary hearing on Simpson's petition for an

emergency injunction and Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions. Simpson

was acting pro se.      Moreland's counsel, Martin's counsel, and Simpson presented

arguments in support of and in opposition to the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions. On September

25, 2023, the trial court granted Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions and

dismissed Simpson's complaint with prejudice.

       {¶ 5} Simpson now appeals, pro se, the dismissal of her complaint under Civ.R.

12(B)(6), raising nine assignments of error.

       {¶ 6} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Buckner v. Bank of New York,

12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-07-053, 2014-Ohio-568, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Hanson

v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 1992-Ohio-73. "[W]hen a

party files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all the factual allegations of the

complaint must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of

the nonmoving party." Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 60 (1991). For a trial court to

dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt

from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him or her to

recovery. LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323, 2007-Ohio-3608, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 7} The trial court may look only to the complaint to determine whether the

allegations are legally sufficient to state a claim. Ward v. Graue, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2011-04-032, 2012-Ohio-760, ¶ 10. The court "cannot rely upon evidence outside of

the complaint when considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss." Tankersley v. Ohio

Fair Plan Underwriting Assn., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-01-003, 2018-Ohio-4386,

¶ 34. However, "[m]aterial incorporated in a complaint may be considered part of the

                                               -3-
                                                                      Butler CA2023-10-116

complaint for purposes of determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss." State ex rel.

Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 249, fn. 1, 1997-Ohio-274. An

appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss

de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, ¶ 5.

       {¶ 8} With these principles and standards in mind, we address Simpson's

assignments of error. For readability purposes, Simpson's seventh assignment of error

will be addressed out of order; the third assignment of error will be addressed last.

       {¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:

       {¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO ADMINISTER EQUAL

JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

       {¶ 11} In this assignment of error, Simpson refers to the boundary dispute and

"fraudulent Banking Instruments," asserts that the trial court "was not impartial to the

parties in this proceeding," and ostensibly argues she was entitled to more preferential

treatment because she was acting pro se.

       {¶ 12} App.R. 16(A)(7) requires an appellate brief to include reasons in support of

an assignment of error with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied

upon. If a party fails to identify the error in the record upon which the assignment is based

or argue an assignment as required by App.R. 16(A), an appellate court may disregard

the assignment of error. App.R. 12(A)(2). An appellant bears the burden of affirmatively

demonstrating error on appeal and substantiating his or her arguments in support thereof.

Ostigny v. Brubaker, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-03-026, 2024-Ohio-384, ¶ 38. It is

not an appellate court's duty to "root out" or develop an argument that can support an

assigned error, even if one exists. Lebanon v. Ballinger, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-

08-107, 2015-Ohio-3522, ¶ 27. Nor is it the duty of an appellate court to search the record

for evidence to support an appellant's argument as to alleged error.             Hellmuth v.

                                              -4-
                                                                              Butler CA2023-10-116

Stephens, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-04-034, 2023-Ohio-4592, ¶ 23.

        {¶ 13} Simpson does not identify the error in the trial court's dismissal of her

complaint and fails to articulate how the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint under

Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Simpson does not cite to the record, fails to cite any legal authority, and

does not offer any analysis of the assigned error. Although Simpson is proceeding pro

se, a pro se appellant is held to the same obligations and standards set forth in the

appellate rules that apply to all litigants. Bowles v. Singh, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA99-

10-094, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3410, *5 (July 31, 2000).

        {¶ 14} Simpson's first assignment of error is overruled.

        {¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 7:

        {¶ 16} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO RULE ON ANY OF

SIMPSON'S OPEN PLEADINGS.

        {¶ 17} This assignment of error simply consists of the conclusory statement above

and is therefore overruled on the basis of App.R. 12 and 16. Shamrock Restoration,

L.L.C. v. Muncy, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-07-056, 2024-Ohio-1002, ¶ 19.1

        {¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2:

        {¶ 19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO INSTRUCT SIMPSON

THAT SHE COULD AMEND OR REPLEAD HER PLEADINGS.

        {¶ 20} Simpson argues the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint because it

did not advise her how her complaint was deficient and failed to instruct her to file an

amended complaint.

        {¶ 21} Simpson was acting pro se below. While she has the right to represent

1. The record indicates that Simpson filed a "reply" to Moreland's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss,
"objections" to Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss, and a motion to dismiss
Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions as untimely. Simpson's foregoing pleadings were implicitly
overruled or rendered moot by the trial court's dismissal of her complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
                                                    -5-
                                                                      Butler CA2023-10-116

herself, a pro se litigant is bound by the same rules and procedures as litigants with

retained counsel. Stiles v. Hayes, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2015-01-007, 2015-Ohio-

4141, ¶ 18. If a court treats pro se litigants differently, the court begins to depart from its

duty of impartiality and prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other litigants

represented by counsel. Asset Acceptance LLC v. Evans, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-

36, 2004-Ohio-3382, ¶ 9. A court and the clerk of court cannot act as the pro se litigant's

advisor. Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., C.P. No. CV 2010 07 4690, 2011

Ohio Misc. LEXIS 25310, *15 (Nov. 3, 2011). Moreland's motion to dismiss should have

put Simpson on notice that the allegations in her complaint might be insufficient to state

a claim. Pro se litigants are not to be accorded greater rights and are bound to accept

the results of their own mistakes and errors, including those related to correct legal

procedure. Cat-The Rental Store v. Sparto, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2001-08-024, 2002-

Ohio-614, ¶ 13.

       {¶ 22} To the extent the second assignment of error also challenges the trial court's

failure to consider numerous pieces of evidence, including "Survey Exhibits, a Fraudulent

Banking Instrument and an illegal Affidavit," such is addressed under the fifth and sixth

assignments of error.

       {¶ 23} Simpson's second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 4

       {¶ 25} THE TRIAL COURT CONVEYED THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS AND

PREJUDICE AGAINST A SUI JURIS LITIGANT.

       {¶ 26} Simpson argues that the trial court conveyed the appearance of bias and

prejudice against her because on the day of the hearing, she observed "opposing

counsel(s) walk back to the bailiff and start yucking it up with the Judge's staff as if they

owned the place. * * * People that come before the Court aren't afforded the same

                                               -6-
                                                                                 Butler CA2023-10-116

privilege."

        {¶ 27} The question of a judge's alleged bias or prejudice is not a proper subject

for appellate review. Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-442 (1978). "A court of

appeals is without authority to pass upon disqualification or to void the judgment of the

trial court upon that basis." State v. Ramos, 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 398 (9th Dist.1993);

Williams v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA96-01-015, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5649, *9

(Dec. 16, 1996). Simpson's exclusive remedy if she believed the trial court was biased

and prejudiced against her was to file an affidavit of bias and prejudice pursuant to R.C.

2701.03. Williams at *10, citing State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 471

(1956).

        {¶ 28} Simpson's fourth assignment of error is overruled.

        {¶ 29} Assignment of Error No. 5:

        {¶ 30} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE

AND TAKE COGNIZANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD REGARDING SURVEY

BOUNDARY LINES ISSUES WHICH WERE THE ISSUES THAT INITIATED THE

INJUNCTION.

        {¶ 31} Simpson argues the trial court erred when it failed to consider two separate

land surveys of Moreland's property.2 The first land survey was attached as an exhibit to

Moreland's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; the second land survey was attached as

an exhibit to an affidavit by Moreland's counsel. Although Simpson's complaint refers to

a land survey Moreland had done of his property, the complaint did not incorporate a copy

of the survey. While material incorporated in a complaint may be considered for purposes

2. Simpson also asserts that the trial court ignored her objection to Moreland's testimony during the hearing.
Moreland did not testify; rather, his counsel presented argument in support of the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to
dismiss. Following counsel's presentation, Simpson voiced her disagreement to a statement made by
counsel. We disregard this issue pursuant to App.R. 12 and 16.
                                                      -7-
                                                                     Butler CA2023-10-116

of determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court could not rely upon

evidence outside of the complaint when considering Moreland's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to

dismiss. Crabtree, 77 Ohio St.3d at 249, fn. 1; Tankersley, 2018-Ohio-4386 at ¶ 34.

       {¶ 32} Simpson's fifth assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 33} Assignment of Error No. 6:

       {¶ 34} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT WILLFULLY IGNORED FEDERAL

FRAUDULENT BANKING INSTRUMENTS THAT HAD PASSED THROUGH PRIORITY

NATIONAL TITLE SERVICES COMPANY.

       {¶ 35} This assignment of error refers to "fraudulent banking instruments and

records" that were improperly ignored by the trial court and not brought to the court's

attention by Martin's counsel. The assignment of error also asserts that Martin and

Barbara Farrell conspired to prevent Simpson from filing a title insurance claim, and that

Priority National Title Services Company created a fictitious non-notarized affidavit that

was used against Simpson. Simpson's complaint simply indicates that "Martin, president

and Agent for Priority National Title Services has refused to state if she has familial

relations with the Martin family"; the complaint does not refer to Farrell.

       {¶ 36} Simpson's foregoing grievances are explained in the "Backstory" section of

her statements of facts in her brief. Apparently, following the boundary dispute and a

foreclosure action initiated against Simpson by Wells Fargo Bank, Simpson discovered

the alleged fraudulent banking documents and the alleged fictitious affidavit when she

"went back and scrutinized all closing documents." However, neither these grievances

nor the fraudulent banking instruments were included in her complaint against Moreland

and Martin. Furthermore, Simpson does not articulate how or why the trial court erred in

dismissing her complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in light of these grievances.

       {¶ 37} Simpson's sixth assignment of error is overruled.

                                              -8-
                                                                   Butler CA2023-10-116

      {¶ 38} Assignment of Error No. 8:

      {¶ 39} THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT APPLY WELL-KNOWN

AFFIDAVIT CASE LAW.

      {¶ 40} Simpson argues the trial court erred when it did not apply the "affidavit case

law." Simpson asserts that Moreland and Martin "never contested any of [her] Affidavits.

So it must be assumed her Affidavits are true."

      {¶ 41} Simpson did not attach affidavits to her complaint or any of her subsequent

pleadings.   It appears instead that Simpson refers to her June 20, 2023 "reply" to

Moreland's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, her July 17, 2023 "objection" to Moreland's

and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss, and possibly her August 03, 2023 motion

to dismiss Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions. With the exception of the

documents' first page which includes a caption in compliance with Civ.R. 10(A), these

filings are written in affidavit form. As was the case for her complaint, the filings are

notarized. "An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the

adverse party." R.C. 2319.02. Though labeled as such by Simpson, the filings above are

not affidavits but pleadings responding to Moreland's and Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions

to dismiss, that is, memoranda in opposition to the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss.

Regardless, and as we have stated, it is only Simpson's complaint that is relevant to the

trial court's granting of the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss. Finding no merits to

Simpson's argument, her eighth assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶ 42} Assignment of Error No. 9:

      {¶ 43} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED DEFENDANT TINA

MARTIN TO DISMISS SANCTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PER CIV.R. 41(A) – THIS

IS AN EGREGIOUS AFFRONT TO THE RULE OF LAW.

      {¶ 44} Simpson argues the trial court erred by allowing Martin to dismiss her

                                            -9-
                                                                    Butler CA2023-10-116

motion for sanctions under Civ.R. 41(A) because Martin is not a plaintiff. This issue is not

properly before us.

       {¶ 45} On July 10, 2023, Martin moved to dismiss Simpson's complaint against her

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Martin also moved for sanctions against Simpson pursuant

to R.C. 2323.51. On September 25, 2023, the trial court granted Martin's Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

motion, dismissing Simpson's complaint with prejudice. Simpson timely filed a notice of

appeal from the trial court's September 25, 2023 decision. Subsequently, Martin moved

to dismiss her motion for sanctions pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A). That motion was granted

by the trial court on November 7, 2023.

       {¶ 46} The trial court's entry granting Martin's Civ.R. 41(A) motion is a post-

judgment order that is not within the scope of the noticed appeal pursuant to App.R. 3(D).

In re England, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP-1749, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2605, *15 (May

18, 1993); State v. Jordan, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-07-082, 2022-Ohio-563. We

may only consider arguments regarding matters that are properly before us in compliance

with App.R. 3(D) and 4. Jordan at ¶ 8. Because Simpson's ninth assignment of error

concerns a judgment entry that was filed after the notice of appeal in this case and is not

within the scope of the noticed appeal, the assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 47} Assignment of Error No. 3:

       {¶ 48} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED SIMPSON'S CLAIM

WITH PREJUDICE.

       {¶ 49} The determination of whether a dismissal is with or without prejudice rests

within the sound discretion of the court. Klan v. Med. Radiologists, Inc., 12th Dist. Warren

No. CA2014-01-007, 2014-Ohio-2344, ¶ 20. "[A] dismissal for failure to state a claim is

without prejudice except in those cases where the claim cannot be pleaded in any other

way." Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167, 2008-Ohio-5379, ¶ 17,

                                             - 10 -
                                                                      Butler CA2023-10-116

citing Collins v. Natl. City Bank, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19884, 2003-Ohio-6893, ¶ 51

("An order of dismissal entered pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is an adjudication on the

merits of the issue the rule presents, which is whether a pleading put before the court

states a claim for relief. It does not adjudicate the merits of the claim itself, unless it can

be pleaded in no other way").

       {¶ 50} Simpson's complaint alleged that boundary issues were discovered by

Moreland's land survey of his property, that the land survey and Moreland's subsequent

threats to Simpson he owns part of her property call into question the driveway easement

in some unidentified way, and that an emergency injunction is warranted to deny and

prevent Moreland from accessing the driveway easement until the boundary issues are

resolved. Simpson's complaint also implied that the easement may not be valid because

it was the product of family or business underhanded actions.

       {¶ 51} Simpson's pro se complaint is poorly pleaded. It does not appear that she

has any viable claim that the duly executed and recorded easement is invalid. Further,

she does not identify in her complaint any defect in the driveway easement or allege that

its use is somehow interfering with the use of her property. Nonetheless, we find that the

trial court's dismissal of Simpson's complaint with prejudice is unduly harsh.

       {¶ 52} As stated above, the determination of whether a dismissal is with or without

prejudice rests within the trial court's discretion. An abuse of discretion is more than an

error of law or judgment, it implies an attitude of the court that is unreasonable, arbitrary,

or unconscionable. Wightman v. Weade, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2019-04-006, 2019-

Ohio-4915, ¶ 13.     The abuse of discretion standard is "heightened when reviewing

decisions that forever deny a plaintiff a review of a claim's merits," because one of the

tenets of Ohio jurisprudence is that "disposition of cases on their merits is favored in the

law." Jones v. Hartranft, 78 Ohio St.3d 368, 371-372, 1997-Ohio-20; Klan, 2014-Ohio-

                                              - 11 -
                                                                   Butler CA2023-10-116

2344 at ¶ 21 (the long-standing general principle is that cases should be decided on their

merits whenever possible and not upon pleading deficiencies).

       {¶ 53} We accordingly find Simpson's third assignment of error to be well-taken

and sustain it. Pursuant to App.R. 12(B), we hereby modify the trial court's judgment

entry by modifying the dismissal from "with prejudice" to "without prejudice." As thus

modified, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

       S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.

                                             - 12 -