Grace v. Exeter Fin.

2024 Ohio 6027

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 26, 2024
• Docket: 113798
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Grace v. Exeter Fin., 2024-Ohio-6027.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF OHIO

MYRON GRACE, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 113798

v. :

EXETER FINANCE, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 26, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-24-991190

Appearances:

Myron Grace, pro se.

McGlinchey Stafford, Jessica M. Johnson, and James W. Sandy, for appellee.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

Plaintiff-appellant Myron Grace, pro se, appeals the decision of the

trial court that dismissed the case with prejudice upon granting defendant-appellee

Exeter Finance LLC’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Upon review, we affirm the trial

court’s decision.

On January 10, 2024, appellant Myron Grace filed a complaint

against Exeter Finance (“Exeter”). Grace alleged that on January 2, 2024, Exeter

sent him a “notice of right to cure default” that stated $2,202.68 was due by

January 15, 2024, that Exeter was acting in an unreasonable manner toward him,

that he had acted in good faith by making multiple payments in December 2023 and

January 2024, and that Exeter had issued an extension on the contract. The

complaint referenced the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”); R.C. 1345.02

for unfair or deceptive acts or practices; several criminal statutes, including R.C.

2913.01 for certain definitions relating to theft and fraud offenses; R.C. 2913.01 for

extortion; and R.C. 2921.03 for intimidation. The complaint makes the conclusory

assertion that “Exeter Finance has committed Fraud, Threat of Intimidation,

Violation of ORC Consumer Codes, Abuse of Fiduciary Relationship, Detrimental

Reliance, and Extortion, and caused the Plaintiff Emotional Distress.” Grace

requested damages in a total amount of $72,500.

Grace attached to his complaint a copy of the notice of right to cure

default that reflected the amount due on a contract for a 2019 Dodge Caravan and

informed Grace of his right to cure the default by January 15, 2024. Grace also

attached a retail installment contract for his purchase of the vehicle from New

Century Auto Sales on March 13, 2021. On February 9, 2024, Exeter filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Exeter argued that (1) it is not subject to the Ohio CSPA as an

“assignee” of the retail installment contract; (2) there are no independent civil

causes of action for criminal theft or criminal extortion under Ohio law; and (3)

Grace had failed to state a viable claim for criminal intimidation because there was

no allegation that plaintiff is a public servant. Exeter otherwise argued that

plaintiff’s complaint merely stated legal conclusions without any factual support for

his alleged claims. Exeter cited case law supporting the dismissal of the claims.

Grace filed a brief in opposition to Exeter’s motion that generally

reasserted what was in his complaint. Exeter filed a reply in which it argued that

Grace had failed to address Exeter’s arguments supporting a dismissal of the claims

or to establish that he has any viable claims.

On April 4, 2024, the trial court granted Exeter’s motion to dismiss

the complaint for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court

considered the arguments, set forth the applicable law for a Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

dismissal, and concluded as follows:

Having construed the material allegations in the pleadings with reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party, the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not state facts demonstrating viable claims for relief. As such, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against defendant Exeter Finance is proper and movants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice, and Grace appealed the trial

court’s decision. At the outset, we are mindful that “[a]n appellate court addresses and

resolves legal error as presented and argued by the parties” and “[i]t is not the court’s

task to formulate . . . legal arguments” on their behalf. State v. Hale, 2024-Ohio-

4866, ¶ 27, citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 19. Furthermore, “‘[i]t

is well established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law

and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who

are represented by counsel.’” (Emphasis in original.) State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel,

2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145

Ohio App.3d 651, 654 (10th Dist. 2001).

In this appeal, the assignment of error presented by Grace challenges

a ruling that never occurred. Grace claims that the trial court erred by allowing

Exeter’s request to compel arbitration to be granted, that he is indigent and has no

financial means to pay for arbitration, and that the cost of arbitration would be

unconscionable. However, there was no request to compel arbitration in this case,

and the trial court never ordered the case to arbitration. Rather, the case was

dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. The assignment of error as presented is overruled.

Nevertheless, we recognize that this appeal was taken from the trial

court’s dismissal of the action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and appellee has argued that

the motion to dismiss should be affirmed. Our review of the trial court’s decision is

de novo. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., 2012-Ohio-90, ¶ 6, citing

Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 2004-Ohio-4362, ¶ 5. “A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond all doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff

can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.” Id. at ¶ 7, citing O’Brien v. Univ.

Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245 (1975). “While the factual

allegations of the complaint are taken as true, ‘[u]nsupported conclusions of a

complaint are not considered admitted . . . and are not sufficient to withstand a

motion to dismiss.’” Id. at ¶ 8, quoting State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots, 45 Ohio

St.3d 324 (1989).

Upon our de novo review in this matter, we find the trial court did not

err in granting Exeter’s motion to dismiss. A review of the complaint shows that it

fails to set forth a proper claim against Exeter for violation of the Ohio CSPA and

refers to criminal provisions without pleading civil causes of action. Further, we find

that the complaint sets forth insufficient factual allegations, includes unsupported

legal conclusions, and otherwise fails to state any viable claim upon which relief can

be granted. We agree with the trial court’s determination that Exeter is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Grace has failed to

demonstrate otherwise on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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

common pleas 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.

______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR