Court Opinion

ID: 9919638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 20:07:10.001963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:47.604737
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Lower v. Lower, 2024-Ohio-113.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MICHAEL LOWER                                     JUDGES:
                                                  Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellant                       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                  Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
                                                  Case No. 2023 CA 00021
DONALD LOWER, et al.

        Defendants-Appellees                      OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                       Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
                                               Pleas, Case No. 2022 CV 00474

JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        January 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                        For Defendants-Appellees

MICHALE SCOTT LOWER, PRO SE                    COLIN R. BEACH
200 East Church Street                         SALKER NOVACK LEGAL GROUP LLC
P. O. Box 402                                  5013 Pine Creek Drive
Amanda, Ohio 43102                             Westerville, Ohio 43081
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00021                                               2

Wise, P. J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Michael Lower appeals the May 16, 2023, Judgement Entry of the

Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio granting Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss the

Amended Complaint. Appellees are Donald Lower, Individually and as Executor of the

Estate of Nancy G. Lower, and Colin Beach. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are

as follows.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On September 2, 2022, Appellees filed a Complaint for Declaratory

Judgment.

       {¶3}   On January 5, 2023, Appellant filed an Amended Complaint against

Appellees for fraud, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with a contract.

       {¶4}   On February 2, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint.

       {¶5}   On February 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Reply addressing Appellant’s

Response.

       {¶6}   On May 17, 2023, the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶7}   Appellant filed a notice of appeal and herein raises the following

Assignments of Error:

       {¶8}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF’S

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DONALD LOWER BECAUSE

THE ELEMENTS OF ‘JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE’, AS WELL AS ‘RESULTING
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00021                                                   3

PROXIMATE INJURY’ WERE SUFFICIENTLY PLED PER THE STANDARD FOR

MAINTAINING A CLAIM ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PLAINTIFF IS A PRO SE LITIGANT.

       {¶9}   “II.   THE   TRIAL   COURT      ERRED      BY    DISMISSING      THE    CIVIL

CONSPIRACY CLAIMS AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS BECAUSE THE NOTICE

PLEADINGS AS CONTAINED WITHIN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUSTAINED THE

FRAUD AND RESULTING PROXIMATE INJURY CAUSED BY THE TANDEM, JOINT,

AND MUTUAL ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS.”

                                      Standard of Review

       {¶10} This Court reviews judgments on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under a de novo standard.

Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 229, 551

N.E.2d 981; Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814

N.E.2d 44, ¶5. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 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 Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605 N.E.2d 378

(1992), citing Assn. for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42

Ohio St.3d 116, 117, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (1989). In considering a motion to dismiss, a trial

court may not rely on allegations or evidence outside of the complaint. State ex rel. Fuqua

v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 (1997). Rather, the trial court may

review only the complaint and may dismiss the case only if it appears beyond a doubt the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to recover. O’Brien v. Univ.

Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus.

Unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not sufficient to withstand a motion to
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00021                                                   4

dismiss. Schulman v. Cleveland (1972) 30 Ohio St.2d 196, 198, 59 O.O.2d 196, 197, 283

N.E.2d 175, 176.

                                                 I.

       {¶11} In Appellant’s first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erred

by dismissing Appellant’s fraud cause of action. We disagree.

       {¶12} The elements of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation are:

              (1) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose,

       concealment of a fact, (2) which is material to the transaction at hand, (3)

       made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and

       recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be

       inferred, (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it, (5)

       followed by justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment by

       the other party, and (6) a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.

       {¶13} Funk v. Durant, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2002-0032, 155 Ohio App.3d

99, 2003-Ohio-5591, 799 N.E.2d 221, ¶20

       {¶14} Appellant asserts the fraud in the case sub judice was committed against

Nancy Lower, his mother, not against Appellant. “It is well established law in Ohio that a

fraud claim may not be based on a misrepresentation made to a third party.” Wiles v.

Miller, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-989, 2013-Ohio-3625, ¶37. “A party is unable to maintain an

action for fraud where the fraudulent representations were not made directly to him to

induce him to act on them in matters affecting his own interests.” Baddour v. Fox, 5th Dist.

Licking No. 03CA-77, 2004-Ohio-3059, ¶41.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00021                                                 5

       {¶15} A review of the complaint reveals that Appellant does not claim he justifiably

relied upon any representation made by any Appellee. Instead, the alleged false

representations were made to Appellant’s mother, Nancy Lower. Therefore, from the face

of the complaint Appellant can prove no set of facts entitling him to recover.

       {¶16} Accordingly, Appellant’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.

                                                II.

       {¶17} In Appellant’s second Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court

erred by dismissing Appellant’s civil conspiracy cause of action. We disagree.

       {¶18} The elements of a civil conspiracy claim are: “(1) a malicious combination,

(2) involving two or more persons, (3) causing injury to person or property, and (4) the

existence of an unlawful act independent from the conspiracy itself.” Miller v. Med. Mut.

of Ohio, 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 2012CA0020, 2013-Ohio-3179, ¶51. (Citations omitted).

       {¶19} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an

underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.” Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger

Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2665, 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶40 (10th Dist.2009).

       {¶20} Appellant appears to argue that Appellees conspired to commit a fraud upon

him by making allegedly false representations to Appellant’s mother, Nancy Lower. Since

a civil conspiracy claim cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort and Appellant

cannot maintain his claim of fraud per our disposition of Appellant’s first Assignment of

Error, then Appellant cannot maintain his claim of civil conspiracy. As such, Appellant is

unable to prove any set of facts entitling him to recover.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2023 CA 00021                                          6

      {¶21} Accordingly, Appellant’s second Assignment of Error is overruled.

      {¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of

Common Pleas, Ohio, is hereby, affirmed.

By: Wise, P. J.

Delaney, J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 0111