Arthur v. Weir

2026 Ohio 423

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 2025CA0013
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Arthur v. Weir, 2026-Ohio-423.]

COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PHILLIP FELTON ARTHUR, ET AL. Case No. 2025CA0013

Plaintiffs - Appellants Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 21910096(D) ROBERT WEIR, ET AL. Judgment: Affirmed Defendants Date of Judgment Entry: February 9, 2026 and

MARVIN W. LILLIBRIDGE

Defendant - Appellee

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: BRIAN W. BENBOW, for Plaintiffs-Appellants; MARVIN W. LILLIBRIDGE, PRO SE, for Defendant-Appellee.

King, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-Appellants, Phillip Felton Arthur, individually, and as Executor of

the Sandra Hoffman Estate, appeal the May 5, 2025 judgment entry of the Coshocton

County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, dismissing their claim against

Defendant-Appellee, Marvin W. Lillibridge. We affirm the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} This case involves numerous parties and numerous claims, the facts of

which are set forth in a prior opinion from this court. Arthur v. Weir, 2025-Ohio-2966 (5th Dist.), appeal not accepted 2026-Ohio-154. Those facts are incorporated herein along

with the following facts relevant to this appeal.

{¶ 3} On August 23, 2019, Lillibridge purchased a vehicle from the Estate of John

Hoffman.

{¶ 4} On December 7, 2022, appellants filed a second amended complaint

naming numerous defendants including Lillibridge (Case No. 21910096B which was

merged into Case No. 21910096D, the underlying case in this appeal). This complaint

sought the return of estate assets and alleged concealment of assets, self-dealing, breach

of fiduciary duties, negligence, and conversion, and sought declaratory judgment. Under

"The Parties" section, appellants identified Lillibridge as an individual who received a

"wrongfully transferred asset" i.e., a vehicle, from the Estate of James H. Hoffman, on an

unknown date. See Complaint at ¶ 88(b). This is the only mention of Lillibridge in the

392-paragraph complaint.1 Appellants sought the return of the asset. See Complaint

Demand at ¶ 9, 11.

{¶ 5} On January 19, 2023, Lillibridge filed a pro se answer and admitted to being

a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, listed numerous affirmative defenses, and

demanded dismissal of any and all claims against him. By judgment entry filed May 5,

2025, the trial court dismissed appellants' claim against Lillibridge.

{¶ 6} Appellants filed an appeal with the following assignments of error:

I

{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY GRANTING

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE PLEADINGS WERE

1We note the complaint does not contain paragraphs 186-222. NOT CLOSED, AS APPELLEE LILLIBRIDGE MADE NO APPEARANCE, FILED NO

ANSWER, FILED NO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DID NOT

TAKE ANY ACTION TO DEFEND HIIMSELF."

II

{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY GRANTING

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WHEN GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT

EXISTED."

I, II

{¶ 9} Appellants claim the trial court erred in dismissing their claim against

Lillibridge. We disagree.

{¶ 10} Our standard of review is de novo. Columbus v. Sanders, 2012-Ohio-1514

(5th Dist.). Under a de novo analysis, we must accept all factual allegations of the

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

party. Kramer v. Installations Unlimited, Inc., 147 Ohio App.3d 350 (5th Dist. 2002). De

novo review requires an independent review of the trial court's decision without any

deference to the trial court's determination. Brown v. Scioto County Board of

Commissioners, 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711 (4th Dist. 1993).

{¶ 11} Civ.R. 12(C) governs judgment on the pleadings and states: "After the

pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move

for judgment on the pleadings." Under the rule, "dismissal is appropriate where a court

(1) construes the material allegations in the complaint, with all reasonable inferences to

be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party as true, and (2) finds beyond doubt,

that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570 (1996).

The rule allows the court to consider the complaint and any answers and any attached

materials to the pleadings. Crenshaw v. Howard, 2022-Ohio-3914, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). Civ.R.

12(C) motions are specifically for resolving questions of law; therefore, the rule requires

a determination that no material factual issues exist and that the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166 (1973).

{¶ 12} First, appellants argue the pleadings were not closed because Lillibridge

failed to make an appearance, file an answer, file a motion for judgment on the pleadings,

or take any action to defend himself. A simple review of the pleadings in this case negates

these arguments. As stated in the facts, on January 19, 2023, Lillibridge filed a pro se

answer and admitted to being a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, listed numerous

affirmative defenses, and demanded dismissal of any and all claims against him.

Appellants had ample time, more than fourteen days, to respond, but failed to do so. The

trial court did not sua sponte dismiss the claim against Lillibridge as Lillibridge had asked

for the claim to be dismissed.

{¶ 13} Secondly, appellants argue the trial court erred in dismissing the claim

against Lillibridge because the asset in question, a vehicle sold to Lillibridge from the

Estate of John Hoffman, rightfully belonged to them and was a "concealed" asset. There

is no evidence of the asset being concealed. The vehicle was sold to Lillibridge for

sufficient consideration. Nothing in the record shows the transfer was concealed.

{¶ 14} In dismissing appellants' claim, the trial court stated appellants "have no

beneficial interest in any of the Estate assets in the Estate of James Hoffman, deceased

except for the final net distribution of $2,663.48 which was paid to the Estate of Sandra Hoffman, Deceased, upon the Court's approval of the Estate of James Hoffman,

Deceased's Final and Distributive Account." See Judgment Entry filed May 5, 2025. We

do not find anything in the record to the contrary.

{¶ 15} On the issue of the vehicle sold to Lillibridge, in construing the allegations

in the complaint in favor of appellants as true, we find beyond doubt that appellants cannot

prove any set of facts in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief. We do not

find any material factual issues to exist and find Lillibridge is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.

{¶ 16} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in dismissing appellants' claim

against Lillibridge.

{¶ 17} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.

{¶ 18} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the

Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is AFFIRMED.

{¶ 19} Costs to Appellants.

By: King, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Gormley, J. concur.