Court Opinion

ID: 9910801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 16:08:30.602739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:22.242713
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Hellmuth v. Stephens, 2023-Ohio-4592.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 BUTLER COUNTY

                                    DANIEL L. HELLMUTH,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                  v.

                             JUDGE GREG STEPHENS, et al.

                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                      Case No. CA2022-04-034

                                     Civil Appeal from the
                         Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Ohio
                                   Case No. CV 2021 09 1345

                                         BEFORE:
                  Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D’Apolito,
          Judges of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment.

                                              JUDGMENT:
                                                Affirmed.

Daniel L. Hellmuth, Pro se, 1620 Bryant Drive, Unit 2403, Round Rock, Texas 78664,
Plaintiff-Appellant

Atty. Linda L. Woeber and Atty. Lindsay M. Upton, Montgomery Jonson LLP, 600 Vine
Street, Suite 2650, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for Defendants-Appellees Hon. Magistrate
Lynn A. Busch-Heyman and Hon. Gregory Stephens

Atty. Patrick Kasson, Atty. Thomas N. Spyker, and Atty. Moc P. Malone, Reminger Co.,
LPA, 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Defendants-
Appellees City of Trenton, Ohio, Calvin Woodrey, Richard Miller, Melissa Hobbs, Jennifer
                                                                                       –2–

J. Combs, Ryan Montgomery, Ryan Perry, Raymond L. Nicholas, Arthur Schott, Chelsey
Holland and Jamy Chaney

Atty. Jeffrey C. Turner and Atty. David B. Shaver, Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A.,
8163 Old Yankee Street, Suite C, Dayton, Ohio 45458, for Defendants-Appellees City of
Middletown Appellees

Atty. James C. Smith, Pro se, 613 Westview Avenue, Trenton, Ohio 45067.

                               Dated: December 18, 2023

WAITE, J.

       {¶1}   This is an appeal of the dismissal of a pro se complaint filed in the Butler

County Court of Common Pleas against 22 defendants, including a common pleas judge,

a magistrate, two mayors, eight city council members, a law director, two police chiefs,

and others. The complaint alleged fraud upon the court and perpetuation of fraud in

connection with a residential property dispute that occurred in 2017. This was the seventh

complaint of this nature filed by Appellant arising out of the same facts and circumstances.

The previous cases were resolved in favor of the defendants. The defendants in this case

filed motions for judgment on pleadings, all of which were granted. Based on the principle

of res judicata, Appellant's arguments are overruled and judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

                                 Case History and Facts

       {¶2}   On October 15, 2017, Appellant, Daniel Hellmuth, filed a pro se complaint

in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV 2017 10 2386, against his

daughter Leanne Hood and her husband Herbert Hood. Leanne Hood was, at the time,

a police officer in the City of Middletown, Ohio. The complaint alleged breach of good

faith and tortious interference. In his complaint, Appellant alleged that in 2015, Appellant

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                    –3–

and his wife Susan Hellmuth agreed that the Hoods could live in their home at 800 Dry

Ridge Court in Trenton, Ohio, for part of the year, but that Appellant and his wife would

return in the summer. Appellant and his wife spent their winters in Texas. Appellant and

his wife deeded half the property to the Hoods in September of 2015, and then executed

a second deed transferring the remainder of the property in May of 2016. This second

deed was notarized by Ohio notary Shelley Meehan.

      {¶3}   Susan Hellmuth died in Texas on March 13, 2017.           In June of 2017,

Appellant attempted to move back into the Trenton property but was denied access by

the Hoods. The Hoods then decided to sell the home, giving rise to the lawsuit, which

sought return of the home to Appellant and $10,000 in damages.

      {¶4}   The Hoods filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking quiet title or for

partition of the property. On November 29, 2017, Appellant filed a motion to add notary

Shelley Meehan as a party defendant to the complaint. Appellant believed that Ms.

Meehan improperly notarized the 2016 deed transferring the property to the Hoods.

      {¶5}   During litigation Appellant also filed motions to add as defendants Larry

Mulligan, Jr. (Mayor of the City of Middletown, Ohio), Rodney Muterspaw (Chief of Police

of Middletown), and Butler County Court of Common Pleas Visiting Judge James A.

Brogan.   Appellant also raised other matters, alleging that the deed transfers were

fraudulently induced and were signed under duress. However, no additional defendants

or causes of action were added to the case.

      {¶6}   Judge Gregory Stephens initially presided over the matter, and some

aspects of the case were delegated to Magistrate Lynn Busch-Heyman.

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                   –4–

       {¶7}   Following the hearing held on February 1, 2018, Magistrate Busch-Heyman

ordered that Appellant be allowed to enter the residence for two hours to obtain his

personal property on February 3, 2018. Magistrate Busch-Heyman ordered that the

Hoods were permitted to have law enforcement present to maintain the peace.

       {¶8}   On April 17, 2018, Appellant filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his

complaint. This motion was acknowledged by the court as being self-executing, but

because there was a counterclaim pending, the case remained open. The court granted

summary judgment to Leanne and Herbert Hood on June 1, 2018. Appellant filed a notice

of appeal. The trial court's decision to grant summary judgment was reversed by the

Twelfth District Court of Appeals on November 25, 2019, in Hellmuth v. Hood, 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2018-07-154, 2019-Ohio-4825.

       {¶9}   On remand, Appellees moved to dismiss their counterclaim on November

10, 2020. The parties continued to file documents in the case including an amended

complaint, a motion for summary judgment, motions to strike, etc. Judge William H. Wolff

was eventually assigned to the case, and on September 1, 2021, he filed an order

acknowledging that Appellees had an absolute self-executing right under Civ.R. 41 to

voluntarily dismiss the counterclaim, and that they had done so on November 10, 2020.

He then closed the case in its entirety.

       {¶10} On May 18, 2018, Appellant filed a complaint in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Leanne and Herbert Hood. The complaint

alleged the same set of facts as in Butler County Case No. CV 2017 10 2386, as well as

new causes of action based on an incident that occurred when he picked up his personal

items from the Trenton, Ohio home. He requested $5 million in damages. The court

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                    –5–

accepted the case based on diversity jurisdiction. On April 17, 2019, the court ruled in

the defendants' favor on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a cognizable claim.

The matter was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and was affirmed.

Hellmuth v. Hood, S.D.Ohio No. 1:18-CV-340, 2018 WL 8415469, *3, report and

recommendation adopted, S.D.Ohio No. 1:18-CV-003402019 WL 1649315, aff'd, 6th Cir.

No. 19-35582019 WL 9088170.

      {¶11} On June 6, 2018, Appellant filed another federal complaint in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that named as defendants:

Magistrate Lynn Busch-Heyman; Chelsey Holland; Leanne Hood; Rodney Muterspaw;

Mayor Arthur Scott; Attorney James C. Smith; and police officers of Middletown and

Trenton, Ohio. Appellant once again sought to have the property returned and claimed

that he was owed relief based on the circumstances of the personal property transfer.

His claim for relief was based on various constitutional amendments and unspecified Ohio

law. Attorney James C. Smith and Magistrate Lynn Busch-Heyman were dismissed from

the case due to the absolute privilege of attorney statements made in court, and judicial

immunity. On February 26, 2019, the remainder of the case was dismissed with prejudice

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hellmuth v. Hood, S.D.Ohio No. 1:18-CV-00397,

2019 WL 926021, *4, affirmed, 6th Cir. No. 19-31982019 WL 8219511.

      {¶12} On July 2, 2018, Appellant filed a complaint in the Butler County Court of

Common Pleas (CV 2018 07 1487) against notary Shelley Meehan, alleging that she

improperly notarized the May 2016 deed. Appellant requested $400,000 in damages for

the allegedly fraudulent deed transfer. During the course of the case, Appellees, Leanne

and Herbert Hood, were added as defendants, as well as the subsequent owners of the

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                      –6–

property, Craig and Kimberlee Hahn. On April 12, 2020, Appellant filed an amended

complaint naming all of the current Appellees as defendants. Appellant also added

causes of action for fraud on the court and negligence in failure to conduct a proper

investigation, and he requested $10 million in damages. On August 18, 2021, Judge

William H. Wolff was assigned to the case. The final judgment in Case No. CV 2018 07

1487 was issued on February 8, 2023, in favor of Appellees, and title was quieted in favor

of the Hahns.

       {¶13} On March 22, 2019, Appellant filed yet another complaint in the Butler

County Court of Common Pleas against the City of Middletown, Ohio, its mayor and vice

mayor, the city council, the city manager, the assistant law director, and others. This was

assigned Case No. CV 2019 03 0597. Appellant listed nine causes of action, including

three based on federal statutes, he claimed have arisen out of the allegedly fraudulent

deed transfer and an incident that apparently occurred when he was retrieving personal

property. This case was removed to federal court on April 24, 2019, and was given Case

No. 1:19-cv-303. Judgment was entered in federal court in favor of the defendants on

November 12, 2020. Judge William H. Wolff terminated the Butler County case, which

had remained open pending the federal litigation, on September 1, 2021.

       {¶14} On March 25, 2019, Appellant filed another complaint in the Butler County

Court of Common Pleas (CV 2019 03 0606) against the City of Trenton, Ohio, its mayor,

vice mayor, and all the members of its city council. The case was assigned to Judge

William H. Wolff. The complaint alleged negligence, neglect of duty, failure to intervene,

complicity, libel, slander, and violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Appellant

asserted that all claims arose out of an incident where Appellant attempted to retrieve

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                        –7–

personal property from 800 Dry Ridge Court, Trenton, Ohio. Appellant alleged that

Trenton police officers were at the scene and that his daughter, Leanne Hood, handed

him a box of his possessions and told him to leave. Appellant characterized this meeting

as a court-sanctioned police ambush. Appellant sought $10 million in damages.

       {¶15} On April 15, 2019, this case too, was removed to the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:19-cv-00258. The removal was based

on the allegations of violations of the United Stated Code, with ancillary jurisdiction given

to the federal court over the remaining State of Ohio claims. The court accepted subject

matter jurisdiction over the case. On February 4, 2020, the court ruled that the City of

Trenton defendants were immune from liability under political subdivision immunity, R.C.

2744.02; and that all claims were dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

Hellmuth v. City of Trenton, S.D.Ohio No. 1:19-CV-258, 2019 WL 3543082, *9, report and

recommendation adopted sub nom. Hellmuth v. City of Trenton, Ohio, S.D.Ohio No. 1:19-

CV-258, 2020 WL 553936. The judgment was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals. Hellmuth v. Hood, 6th Cir. No. 19-3198, 2019 WL 8219511.

       {¶16} On September 10, 2021, Appellant filed the instant action in the Butler

County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV 2021 09 1345, against 22 defendants. In

this version of the complaint Appellant alleged fraud upon the court, perpetuation of fraud,

and aggravated assault, again, all arising out of the deed transfer and his attempts to

retrieve his personal property from the home. Appellant also alleged that his wife had

died of a heart attack due to the stress of the deed transfer proceedings.

       {¶17} Judge Stephens and Magistrate Busch-Heyman were named in the

complaint due to their handling of the very first complaint Appellant filed. The Middletown

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                       –8–

defendants were named because Appellant's daughter, Leanne Hood, was a member of

the Middletown police department and because notary Shelley Meehan was from

Middletown.     Appellant believed the Middletown defendants were involved in a

comprehensive plan to defraud him of his property. The Trenton defendants were named

because Trenton police were present at the residence when Appellant retrieved his

personal belongings. Attorney James C. Smith was named because he was supposedly

involved in the deed transfer, was aware of the events surrounding the personal property

transfers, and represented Leanne and Herbert Hood. Appellant requested damages of

$600 million from the City of Trenton, $600 million from the City of Middletown, and $20

million from each individual defendant, for a total of $1.64 billion, plus punitive damages.

Judge William H. Wolff was assigned to the case.

        {¶18} On November 10, 2021, the court sustained the motions to dismiss filed by

Judge Stephens and Magistrate Busch-Heyman.               The court also dismissed the

Middletown defendants from the case in this judgment entry.

        {¶19} On March 10, 2022, the court dismissed all remaining defendants and

issued a final appealable order closing the case. This timely appeal was filed on April 6,

2022.

                              ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

        {¶20} There are no discernible assignments of error filed in this appeal. On April

25, 2022, Appellant made his first attempt at filing his brief. On May 4, 2022, we issued

an order declaring that Appellant's brief was nonconforming, most notably for the lack of

any assignments of error. The brief was stricken from the record. He filed a slightly

different document on May 23, 2022. Instead of actually including any assignments of

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                        –9–

error, he simply relabeled the section called “Procedural Posture” as “Assignment of

Errors.” It is not Appellees' responsibility to define and argue Appellant's case for him,

only to then refute Appellant's case, as part of their response. Appellees could not

discuss any specific description of error in Appellant’s filing, but did respond to his

argument to the best of their ability.

       {¶21} Appellant then refiled the same “brief” on March 13, 2023, with a few more

exhibits attached. This was his third nonconforming document filed with this Court.

Appellant did not file a motion for leave to amend his brief. Neither the Rules of Appellate

Procedure or this Court's local rules provide for additional briefing after the close of the

briefing period, and specifically direct the parties not to file attachments or appendixes to

the brief without first requesting leave. App.R. 16(C) and Loc.R. 11(D)(1).

       {¶22} Appellant appears to believe that typing sentences in bold capital letters in

his “brief” constitutes both the submission of an assignment of error and legal argument.

There are many of these bold type sections in his brief, most simply unsupported

assertions. The bold typed material appears to be nothing more than Appellant's errant

thoughts about his underlying trial court case and do not form the basis for either an

assertion of error or argument in support.

       {¶23} “It is not the duty of an appellate court to search the record for evidence to

support an appellant's argument as to any alleged error.” Hall v. Crawford Cty. Job &

Family Services, 3rd Dist. No. 3-21-19, 2022-Ohio-1358, 188 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 38. “An

appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played

on an appeal.” State v. Lorraine, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 95-T-5196, 1996 WL 207676,

*3.

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                      – 10 –

       {¶24} Appellant briefly mentions that he believes res judicata does not apply to

this appeal, although he does not explain why. All of the Appellees agree that res judicata

does apply and provide a rationale for affirming the trial court’s judgment. As this is the

only “error” we can discern for appellate review, we will address matters involving res

judicata.

       {¶25} Three separate Appellees' briefs have been filed in this appeal. The first is

on behalf of the Middletown defendants, which include: Larry Mulligan, Jr. (former Mayor

of Middletown); Joe Mulligan (former Vice Mayor of Middletown); Ami Vitori and Steve

Bohannon (former members of Middletown City Council); Douglas Atkins (former

Middletown City Manager); Sarah Fox (former Middletown employee); Scott Reeve

(former Major with the Middletown Police Department); Susan Cohen (former Middletown

Assistant City Manager); and Rodney Muterspaw (former Chief of the Middletown Police

Department and current member of Middletown City Council). The second is filed on

behalf of Judge Gregory Stephens and Magistrate Lynn Busch-Heyman. The third is filed

by the City of Trenton defendants, including: Calvin Woodrey (Mayor of Trenton); Richard

Miller (Vice Mayor of Trenton); Melissa Hobbs, Jennifer J. Combs, Ryan Montgomery,

Ryan Perry, and Raymond L. Nichols (members of Trenton City Council); Arthur Scott

(Trenton Police Chief); Chelsey Holland; Jamy Chaney; and Attorney James C. Smith.

       {¶26} Each Appellee agrees that res judicata applies to any issues raised against

them in the complaint, although for slightly different reasons from party to party since not

all Appellees were part of every previous case filed by Appellant. Nevertheless, due to

the vast number of cases and judgments that have dealt with the two or three basic factual

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                        – 11 –

issues underlying all of the litigation, it is apparent from this record that the trial court’s

judgment must be affirmed on the basis of res judicata.

       {¶27} Below is a summary of the prior cases that have been filed and resolved

thus far:

       {¶28} 1. Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2017 10 2386.

Voluntarily dismissed.

       {¶29} 2. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case No.

1:18-CV-340. Judgment for defendants, affirmed by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

       {¶30} 3. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case No.

1:18-CV-00397. Hon. Gregory Stephens and Magistrate Lynn Busch-Heyman dismissed

due to judicial immunity; remainder of case dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

       {¶31} 4. Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2018 07 1487.

Judgment for defendants.

       {¶32} 5. Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2019 03 0597.

Removed to United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case No. 1:19-

cv-303. Judgment for defendants.

       {¶33} 6. Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2019 03 0606.

Removed to United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case No. 1:19-

cv-00258. Judgment for defendants, affirmed by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

       {¶34} “The doctrine of res judicata mandates that the final judgment on the merits

rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of parties and

their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                         – 12 –

the same cause of action.” Ohio Dept. of Human Serv. v. Kozar, 99 Ohio App.3d 713,

716, 651 N.E.2d 1039 (8th Dist.1995).

       {¶35} “The doctrine of res judicata is an integral part of the law of this state. For

purposes of the matters before us, this doctrine is that an existing final judgment or decree

between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have

been litigated in a first lawsuit. Furthermore, it has long been recognized that the doctrine

of res judicata applies in a proper case as between federal court and state court

judgments.” Rogers v. City of Whitehall, 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 69, 494 N.E.2d 1387 (1986).

       {¶36} “Res judicata promotes the principle of finality of judgments by requiring

plaintiffs to present every possible ground for relief in the first action.” Kirkhart v. Keiper,

101 Ohio St.3d 377, 2004-Ohio-1496, 805 N.E.2d 1089, ¶ 5, citing Natl. Amusements,

Inc. v. City of Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178 (1990).

       {¶37} “A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent

actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the

subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653

N.E.2d 226 (1995), syllabus.

       {¶38} “The doctrine of res judicata may be applied where actions between the

same parties in relation to the same subject are pending at the same time, and a judgment

is rendered in one of such actions.” State v. Wise, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2003-12-

113, 2004-Ohio-6241, ¶ 12, quoting 63 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Judgments, Section 394,

at 196 (2003).

       {¶39} “The term 'transaction' may be broader than 'occurrence' and was defined

in Grava to encompass events which arise from a 'common nucleus of operative facts.' ”

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                    – 13 –

Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 75224, 2000 WL 504114, *4,

affirmed, 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001), quoting Grava at 382.

      {¶40} Each Appellee in this matter has had judgment rendered in his or her favor

in at least one prior case brought by Appellant involving the same underlying events: the

transfer of the deed for 800 Dry Ridge Court, Trenton, Ohio, to Leanne and Herbert Hood

(and Appellant's questioning of the notarization of the deed); and the allegations

surrounding Appellant's retrieval of his personal items from the residence.

      {¶41} In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case

1:18-CV-340, the court ruled in the defendants' favor on April 17, 2019, and this was

upheld on appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. This was a dismissal on the

merits with prejudice based on diversity jurisdiction and included Appellant's federal and

State of Ohio claims.

      {¶42} In Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2018 07 1487, the

court issued its final judgment in the defendants' favor on February 8, 2023. Every

Appellee in the instant appeal was also a defendant in that earlier case. This was a

dismissal on the merits with prejudice.

      {¶43} The final judgment in Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV

2019 03 0597, which was transferred and became United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio Case No. 1:19-cv-303, was issued on November 12, 2020, in

the defendants' favor. This was a dismissal on the merits with prejudice and included

state and federal claims.

      {¶44} Finally, in Butler County Court of Common Pleas CV 2019 03 0606, which

was transferred and became United District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Case

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                      – 14 –

No. 1:19-cv-00258, final judgment in favor of the defendants was issued on February 4,

2020. This was a dismissal on the merits with prejudice and was affirmed by the Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals. This case included state and federal claims.

       {¶45} In each of these cases, Appellant was required to raise all claims against

all defendants regarding the events about which Appellant complains. The reasoning

behind each dismissal varied somewhat and included such things as judicial immunity,

attorney privilege, governmental immunity, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim,

and failure to establish the factual merits of the claim. There were also dismissals based

on procedural errors, which was understandable because Appellant has been acting pro

se from the very first filing to the present. As the cases were reworded and refiled, various

claims and defendants were also dismissed on res judicata grounds.

       {¶46} Appellant believes there is some significance to the fact that he partially won

his appeal of the original action he filed, Butler County Court of Common Pleas Case No.

CV 2017 10 2386. Even though Appellant had voluntarily dismissed his complaint before

the matter went to the court of appeals, we ruled that the trial court should not have

granted summary judgment on Leanne Hood's quiet title counterclaim because there

were material facts in dispute. Hellmuth v. Hood, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-07-154,

2019-Ohio-4825. On remand, the Hoods voluntarily dismissed their counterclaim, closing

the trial court case in its entirety. There is nothing about our prior Hellmuth opinion that

aids Appellant in this current appeal. Because the underlying case was dismissed in its

entirety on remand, the trial court was left with nothing to determine on remand and the

appellate decision is moot.

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                      – 15 –

       {¶47} It is interesting to note that on each subsequent case filed by Appellant his

damages request grew, starting at $10,000 and ending at the request in the instant case

for over $1.6 billion. Mere change in each request for damages does not prevent res

judicata from applying. “That a plaintiff changes the relief sought does not rescue the

claim from being barred by res judicata[.]” U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Gullotta, 120 Ohio

St.3d 399, 2008-Ohio-6268, 899 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 27. “It is irrelevant that the plaintiff, in the

second action, is prepared to present evidence or theories of the case not offered in the

first action, or that the plaintiff seeks remedies not previously demanded.” Hapgood v.

City of Warren, 127 F.3d 490, 494 (6th Cir.1997).

       {¶48} One final point that must be addressed is that the dismissal of each

defendant in this case occurred at the initial pleading stage, based on various motions for

judgment on the pleadings.       Judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12 is

appropriate if, in construing all material allegations in the complaint in favor of the

nonmoving party, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the court

finds beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that

would entitle him to relief. Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio

St.3d 412, 413, 2005-Ohio-5409, 835 N.E.2d 701, at ¶ 2. The appellate court uses a de

novo standard of review when evaluating a judgment on the pleadings. Trinity Health

Sys. v. MDX Corp., 7th Dist. No. 07 JE 18, 180 Ohio App.3d 815, 2009-Ohio-417, 907

N.E.2d 746, ¶ 19.

       {¶49} Res judicata is sometimes difficult to apply in the pleading stage because it

often requires reference to facts outside of the pleadings. In this appeal though, we may

rely on principles of judicial notice that allow for the application of res judicata at the

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                          – 16 –

pleadings stage. First, both the trial court and this Court may take judicial notice of the

dockets, orders, judgment entries, and opinions of other courts of record. State ex rel.

Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 10. A

court may even take judicial notice of adjudicative facts when necessary. Evid.R. 201.

Second, a court may take judicial notice of its own docket: “[A] trial court is not required

to suffer from institutional amnesia. It is axiomatic that a trial court may take judicial notice

of its own docket.” Ullom v. Agoston, 8th Dist. No. 110715, 2022-Ohio-3813, 199 N.E.3d

693, ¶ 23. In the instant case, the same trial judge who issued the judgment giving rise

to this appeal, Hon. William H. Wolff, participated in all the Butler County Court of

Common Pleas cases that involve Appellant, Appellees, and the Trenton property

dispute. Thus, Judge Wolff could certainly rely on his institutional knowledge of the entire

history of the dispute as it came back to his desk again and again by means of the five

complaints filed by Appellant in Butler County. Allowing for judicial notice of all the prior

cases, it is clear that res judicata appropriately provided the basis for the trial court’s

judgment.

       {¶50} Because Appellant has not actually filed any assignments of error and has

provided no reason why dismissal of his underlying complaint on the basis of res judicata

was erroneous, his argument is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                          Conclusion

       {¶51} On September 10, 2021, Appellant filed for the seventh time a version of a

complaint in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas involving a deed transfer to his

daughter and son-in-law of property located in Trenton, Ohio. Appellant has continued to

attack the validity of the deed transfer and has also several times raised issues regarding

Case No. CA2022-04-034
                                                                                    – 17 –

a visit to the property to pick up personal belongings. Appellant included 22 defendants

in the case, and the court granted judgment on the pleadings to all defendants. All of the

defendants had judgment rendered in their favor on the merits in at least one of these

prior lawsuits. Based on the principle of res judicata, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

Robb, J., concurs.

D’Apolito, J., concurs.

Case No. CA2022-04-034
[Cite as Hellmuth v. Stephens, 2023-Ohio-4592.]