Hull v. Charter One Bank

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 8th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » Hull v. Charter One Bank

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-2101

Case Date: 05/23/2013

Plaintiff: Hull

Defendant: Charter One Bank

Preview:[Cite as Hull v. Charter One Bank, 2013-Ohio-2101.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99308
DOROTHY L. HULL, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
vs.
CHARTER ONE BANK, N.A.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cleveland Municipal Court
Case No. 07 CVF 012587
BEFORE:   Jones, J., Stewart, A.J., and Celebrezze, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:   May 23, 2013

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Brian Ruschel
925 Euclid Avenue
Suite 660
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Robert S. Rybka
P.O. Box 16414
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Brett K. Bacon
Gregory R. Farkas
Frantz Ward, L.L.P.
127 Public Square
Suite 2500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Dorothy Hull and Dock Hull, initiated this action in the
Cleveland Municipal Court against defendant-appellee Charter One Bank, N.A.    The
bank filed a motion to dismiss, which the Hulls opposed.    The trial court granted the
bank’s motion and the Hulls now appeal.    We affirm.
I.    Facts
{¶2} The Hulls alleged in their complaint that Mary Chambers was the sole owner
of a demand checking account with the bank.    According to the Hulls, pursuant to an
agreement  with  the  bank,  the  account  was  payable  to  them  as                          “payable-on-death
beneficiaries” on Chambers’s death.    Chambers died, and the Hulls attempted to collect
the sum; the bank refused.
{¶3} The Hulls alleged that based on the bank’s misrepresentation to them that the
account was not a payable-on-death account, they signed a release of the funds in the
account to Chambers’s estate.    According to the Hulls, the bank failed to preserve or
retain records relating to the account, which would have showed their interest in it.
{¶4} The Hulls sought an order demanding the bank to take several courses of
action relative to “all of its depositors (and payable-on-death beneficiaries)” and “deposit
accounts.”    They also  sought  an  unspecified  amount  for  compensatory and  punitive
damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees.
{¶5} The bank’s motion to dismiss was made under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), for a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.    The trial court granted the bank’s motion finding, in part,
that the Hulls attempted to “bootstrap the alleged monetary damage claim to their true
purpose of requesting equitable relief.”    The court also found that the Hulls made an
“insignificant claim of breach of contract.”
{¶6}  The  Hulls  now  present  eight  assignments  of  error,  which  collectively
challenge the trial court’s decision to grant the bank’s motion to dismiss, and which we
consider together.1
II.    Law and Analysis
A.    Standard of Review
{¶7} The bank’s motion to dismiss was made under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.    In ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court determines whether the claim raises any action
cognizable in that court.    Robinson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,  10th Dist. No.
10AP-550, 2011-Ohio-713, ¶ 5.    Subject matter jurisdiction involves “‘a court’s power
to hear and decide a case on the merits and does not relate to the rights of the parties.’”
Id., quoting Vedder v. Warrensville Hts., 8th Dist. No.  81005,  2002-Ohio-5567,  ¶  14.
An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court’s order granting or denying a Civ.R.
12(B)(1) motion to dismiss.    Robinson at id., citing Hudson v. Petrosurance, 10th Dist.
No. 08AP-1030, 2009-Ohio-4307, ¶ 12.
B.    The Bank’s Motion
1The assignments of error are listed in the appendix.

{¶8} In its motion, the bank contended that it is “well settled that municipal courts
do not have jurisdiction to award injunctive relief, particularly not the sweeping relief
sought by Plaintiffs.”    According to the bank, the Hulls were “forum shopping.”    The
bank offered the following evidence in support of its contention.
{¶9} The Hulls’ attorney brought a different class action case against the bank in
common pleas court.2    The Hulls were named as plaintiffs in the putative class.    This
first  case  contained  the  same  allegations  as  here  relative  to  the  bank’s  handling  of
payable-on-death accounts, but did not allege that the bank breached its contractual duties
with the plaintiffs.    Counsel dismissed the case without prejudice and, approximately
one month later, filed this action in the Cleveland Municipal Court.
{¶10} The bank further presented evidence that after Chambers passed away, a
case was commenced in probate court for the administration of her estate.    The bank
filed  an  interpleader  complaint  in  that  probate  proceeding,  in  which  it  sought  a
determination as to the proper party or parties in interest to her account.    During the
course of the interpleader action, the Hulls executed a release of any personal claim to the
funds in Chambers’s account and the funds were therefore paid into Chambers’s estate
and distributed to her beneficiaries, which included the Hulls.
C.    Municipal Court Jurisdiction
{¶11}  Although  there  are  statutory  exceptions,  it  is  well-established  that  a
municipal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an action that is principally
2Frances Ruschel v. Charter One Bank, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV 597402.

equitable in nature.    Bretton Ridge Homeowners Club v. DeAngelis, 22 Ohio App.3d 65,
67-68, 488 N.E.2d 925 (8th Dist.1985).
{¶12} The Hulls contend that the municipal court had jurisdiction under R.C.
1901.18(A)(2), (3), and (6).    Those sections provide as follows:
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this division or section 1901.181 of the
Revised Code, subject to the monetary jurisdiction of municipal courts as
set forth in section  1901.17 of the Revised Code, a municipal court has
original jurisdiction within its territory in all of the following actions or
proceedings and to perform all of the following functions:
(2) In any action or proceeding at law for the recovery of money or personal
property of which the court of common pleas has jurisdiction;
(3) In any action at law based on contract, to determine, preserve, and
enforce all legal and equitable rights involved in the contract, to decree an
accounting, reformation, or cancellation of the contract, and to hear and
determine  all  legal  and  equitable  remedies  necessary  or  proper  for  a
complete determination of the rights of the parties to the contract;
(6) In any action or proceeding in the nature of interpleader.
{¶13}  We  consider  each  in  turn.    First,  in  considering  the  municipal  court’s
jurisdiction under subsection (2), we note that not every claim seeking monetary relief is a
claim for money damages.    See Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of
Adm. Servs., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-747, 2008-Ohio-2286, ¶ 15. Thus, even where a party
seeks relief that will ultimately result in the payment of money, “a cause of action will
sound in equity if ‘money damages’ is not the essence of the claim.”    Id., citing Ohio
Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 114 Ohio St.3d 14,

2007-Ohio-2620, 867 N.E.2d 400, ¶ 15.    For example, an equitable action for specific
relief, “seeking reimbursement of the compensation allegedly denied, is not transformed
into a claim for damages simply because it involves the payment of money.”      Zelenak
v. Indus. Comm., 148 Ohio App.3d 589, 2002-Ohio-3887, 774 N.E.2d 769, ¶ 18                     (10th
Dist.), citing Ohio Edison Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 86 Ohio App.3d 189, 194, 620
N.E.2d 217 (10th Dist.1993).
{¶14} The Supreme Court of  Ohio has distinguished monetary damages from
equitable remedies as follows:                                                                 “Unlike a claim for money damages where a plaintiff
recovers damages to compensate, or substitute, for a suffered loss, equitable remedies are
not substitute remedies, but an attempt to give the plaintiff the very thing to which it was
entitled.”    Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28,
801 N.E.2d 441, ¶ 14.
{¶15} Upon review, we find that, although the Hulls’ complaint made a claim for
monetary  damages,   the   complaint   sounded   primarily  in   equity.                       Thus,   R.C.
1901.18(A)(2)  is  not  applicable.     Moreover,  because  we  find  that  the  complaint
primarily sought equitable relief, the issue of whether the complaint met the jurisdictional
monetary requirement under R.C. 1901.17 is moot.
{¶16}  Second,  we  consider  the  Hulls’  complaint  under  subsection  (3).    The
equitable jurisdiction of municipal courts is limited to that provided in this section, and
such courts have jurisdiction to fully deal with all aspects and claims that may arise in
actions at law based upon contract.    Blenheim Homes, Inc. v. Mathews, 119 Ohio App.

44, 46, 196 N.E.2d 612 (10th Dist.1963).
{¶17}  The  Hulls’  sole  allegation  of  breach  of  contract  was  as  follows:
“Defendant violated its contractual, statutory, and other duties to Mary Chambers and the
plaintiffs by not retaining or preserving records related to the account.”  (Emphasis
added.)    Complaint, ¶ 6.    Thus, the Hulls never even alleged that the bank breached the
purported payable-on-death account; rather, they contended that the “breach of contract”
was a failure to properly preserve records, which, in fact, is a statutory violation.    See
R.C. 1109.69.
{¶18} Moreover, under Civ.R. 10(D)(1) the Hulls were required to attach a copy of
the agreement or contract that established them as payable-on-death beneficiaries.    Even
assuming that the reason that they did not attach the documentation was because it was
not in their possession and the bank did not retain a copy of it, Civ.R. 10(D)(1) requires
that they specifically state that in their complaint, which they did not.3
{¶19} On this record, we agree with the trial court that the Hulls’ allegation was an
“insignificant claim of breach of contract in an attempt to avoid being dismissed from the
municipal court.”
{¶20}  Third,  we  find  R.C.                                                                            1901.18(A)(6)  inapplicable.    That  section  allows
3Civ.R. 10(D)(1) provides as follows:                                                                    “When any claim or defense is founded on an account
or other written instrument, a copy of the account or written instrument must be attached to the
pleading.    If the account or written instrument is not attached, the reason for the omission must be
stated in the pleading.”

municipal court jurisdiction for an interpleader action.    Civ.R. 22 governs interpleader
actions and provides:                                                                         “Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as
defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or
may be exposed to double or multiple liability.”    The Hulls did not file an interpleader
action and the relief they sought was not in the nature of an interpleader action.    Thus,
R.C. 1901.18(A)(6) is wholly inapplicable.
{¶21} In light of the above, neither R.C. 1901.18(A)(2), (3), nor (6) conferred the
municipal court with jurisdiction here.
{¶22} The Hulls also contend that jurisdiction was conferred on the municipal
court under R.C. 1901.13(B).    That section provides as follows:
Whenever an action or proceeding is properly brought in a municipal court
within Cuyahoga county, the court has jurisdiction to determine, preserve,
and enforce all rights involved in the action or proceeding, and to hear and
determine  all  legal  and  equitable  remedies  necessary  or  proper  for  a
complete determination of the rights of the parties.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶23} As stated above, the action was not properly brought in the municipal court.
The court, therefore, did not have jurisdiction under R.C. 1901.13(B) to make equitable
determinations.    See also R.C. 1901.13(A) (stating that a municipal court has the power
to take certain actions  “[i]n any action or proceeding of which a municipal court has
jurisdiction * * *.”); Rose v. Assoc. Discount Corp., 169 Ohio St. 321, 159 N.E.2d 459
(1959) (power of municipal court limited by first clause of R.C. 1901.13(A)).
{¶24} In sum, the proper jurisdiction over this matter rested with the probate

court.4    The Hulls signed a release to their “personal claim to the funds in [the] account”
and agreed that the account would be “included in the Estate of Mary Chambers.”    The
bank filed an interpleader action in the probate court, seeking to determine who the
proper beneficiaries of the proceeds of the account were.    The proceeds of the account
were treated as an asset of the estate, the beneficiaries were determined, and distributions,
including to the Hulls, were ordered.
{¶25} In light of the above, the trial court properly granted the bank’s motion to
dismiss.    The  Hulls’  eight  assignments  of  error  are  overruled  and  the  trial  court’s
judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cleveland
Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
4 R.C.                                                                                                   2101.24,  governing  the  jurisdiction  of  probate  court,  provides  that   “[e]xcept  as
otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: * * * [t]o direct and control
the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of
estates.”    R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c).

LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR
APPENDIX
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1.                                                                                  The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction, because the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction, in that
the  Ohio  Revised  Code  provides  the  Cleveland  Municipal  Court  with
original subject-matter jurisdiction, because the complaint was filed in a
municipal  court  within  Cuyahoga  County  and  requests  compensatory
damages, and nothing in the record shows that the amount claimed by any
party or the value of any recovery sought exceeds  $15,000  (exclusive of
interest, damages for the detention of personal property, or costs accrued
after commencement of the action).
2.                                                                                  The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction  based  in  part  on  its  finding  that  the  Hull  plaintiffs  are
“attempt[ing] to bootstrap the alleged monetary damage claim to their true
purpose of requesting equitable relief” when the opposite is true: they are
seeking money, and have an ancillary request for injunctive relief.
3.                                                                                  The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction, because the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction, in that
the  Ohio  Revised  Code  provides  the  Cleveland  Municipal  Court  with
original subject-matter jurisdiction here.

4.                                                                                     The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction, because the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction, in that no
other court or entity has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction.
5.                                                                                     The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction  based  on  the  trial  court’s  subjective  belief  that  the  dispute
should instead be resolved by the Probate Court or Court of Common Pleas,
in that R.C. 1901.13 gives the municipal court “jurisdiction to determine,
preserve, and enforce all rights involved in the action or proceeding, and to
hear and determine all legal and equitable remedies necessary or proper for
a complete determination of the rights of the parties.”
6.                                                                                     The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction  in  reliance  on  O’Shea  v.  Fayard,                                    2003-Ohio-4330                                                                  (8th
Dist.2003), Schregardus v. Croucher, 56 Ohio App.3d 174 (8th Dist.1989),
and Pappas v. T.V.C. Developers, No. 61917 (8th Dist.1993), in that those
cases do not mandate dismissal here.
7.                                                                                     The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction  based  in  part  on  appellee’s  opinion  that  appellants  are
improperly trying to “forum shop” when it is appellee that is trying to forum
shop — and no matter what, plaintiffs are allowed to “forum shop” without
having their cases dismissed whenever a court does not like being chosen as
the forum.
8.                                                                                     The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  appellants’  lawsuit  for  lack  of
jurisdiction based in part on the following wrong factual findings: (1) that
the Hull plaintiffs were parties to an earlier lawsuit filed by another plaintiff
in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, and  (2) that the Hull
plaintiffs “have been unsuccessful in each court that they have raised issues
about this bank account” and “unsuccessful at the Court of Common Pleas,”
in that the Hulls never filed any earlier lawsuit on any of the issues in this
case in any other forum.

Download 99308.pdf