[Cite as Miller v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-2905.]
COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL W. MILLER, ET AL. JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellees Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 11CA020 ATLEE J. MILLER, ET AL.
Defendant-Appellants OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas Court, Case No. 09CV094
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 26, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellees For Defendant-Appellants
GRANT A. MASON CRAIG T. CONLEY CHRISTINA I. SMITH 604 Huntington Plaza Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling Ltd. 220 Market Avenue South The Lincoln Bulding Canton, Ohio 44702 88 S. Monroe Street Millersburg, Ohio 44654 Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Atlee J. Miller, et al. appeal the November 2, 2011
Judgment Entry entered by the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, which denied
their motion for frivolous conduct sanctions against plaintiffs-appellees Paul W. Miller,
Kimberly Miller, and Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling, Ltd.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} The instant appeal surrounds a line fence/tree line (hereinafter “disputed
line”) which separates the properties owned by the parties herein. Appellants Atlee
Miller, Viola Miller, and James Miller are the current owners of the property located on
the north side of the disputed line. Appellants Atlee and Viola Miller acquired their
property in 1966. Appellant James Miller acquired a life interest in the property in 1996.
Appellees Paul and Kimberly Miller own the parcel of property located on the south side
of the disputed line. In January, 2001, Appellees acquired their property which had
been owned by Appellee Paul Miller’s parents, Raymond and Esther Miller, since 1974.
{¶3} On June 9, 2009, after a land survey included the disputed line in the legal
description of Appellants’ property, Appellees Paul and Kimberly Miller brought the
instant action asserting ownership of the disputed line under the legal theories of
adverse possession and acquiescence. Appellee Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling, Ltd.
served as legal counsel for Appellees Miller throughout the trial proceedings.
{¶4} The trial court conducted a preliminary injunction hearing on June 29,
2009. Testimony at the hearing revealed the disputed line has been in place since
1952. In an affidavit presented to the court, Raymond Miller averred the disputed line
had not changed since 1974, when he purchased the property. Raymond Miller also Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 3
stated Appellant Atlee Miller and his sons maintained the disputed line, and both
neighbors farmed as close as possible to the disputed line without going over it. The
trial court granted preliminary injunction to Appellees via Judgment Entry filed July 6,
2009. Thereafter, Appellants filed an answer and counterclaim. The matter proceeded
through an extensive discovery process.
{¶5} Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2011.
On April 4, 2011, Appellees voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their adverse
possession claim. Appellants filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and/or
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Via Journal Entry filed May 5, 2011, the trial
court denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, finding there were definite
factual issues which needed to be litigated. The matter proceeded to jury trial on June
13, 2011. On the day of trial, Appellants voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their
counterclaim. After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found in favor of
Appellants.
{¶6} Appellant filed a motion for frivolous conduct sanctions on June 18, 2011,
which the trial court denied via Judgment Entry filed November 2, 2011. It is from this
judgment entry Appellants appeal, assigning as error:
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DENIAL OF
DEFENDANT’S/APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SANCTIONS.”
I
{¶8} Herein, Appellants challenge the trial court’s conclusion Appellees “had
filed a good faith complaint.” Appellants submit such finding was erroneous as the
Complaint was predicated upon material falsehoods and false testimony. Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 4
{¶9} R.C. 2323.51 provides a court may award court costs, reasonable attorney
fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the civil action or
appeal to any party to the civil action or appeal who was adversely affected by frivolous
conduct. R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a) defines “frivolous conduct” as follows:
{¶10} “(i) * * * [conduct that] serves merely to harass or maliciously injure
another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including,
but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of
litigation.
{¶11} “(ii) * * * [conduct that] is not warranted under existing law and cannot be
supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law.
{¶12} “(iii) * * * [conduct that] consists of allegations or other factual contentions
that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, are not likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”
{¶13} A motion for sanctions brought under R.C. 2323.51 requires a three-step
analysis by the trial court. The trial court must determine (1) whether the party engaged
in frivolous conduct, (2) if the conduct was frivolous, whether any party was adversely
affected by it and (3) if an award is to be made, the amount of the award. R.C.
2323.51(B)(2)(a). The question of what constitutes frivolous conduct may be either a
factual determination, or a legal determination. Pingue v. Pingue, Delaware App. No.
06-CAE-10-0077, 2007-Ohio-4818, ¶ 20 citing Wiltberger v. Davis (1996), 110 Ohio
App.3d 46, 673 N.E.2d 628. A determination that the conduct is not warranted under
existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 5
modification, or reversal of existing law requires a legal analysis. Lable & Co. v. Flowers
(1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 227, 233, 661 N.E.2d 782. With respect to purely legal issues,
we follow a de novo standard of review and need not defer to the judgment of the trial
court. Wiltberger, supra, at 51-52, 673 N.E.2d 628. However, we do find some degree of
deference appropriate in reviewing a trial court's factual determinations and will not
disturb such factual determinations where the record contains competent, credible
evidence to support such findings. Id.
{¶14} In determining whether conduct is frivolous, the courts must be careful to
apply the statute so that legitimate claims are not chilled. Beaver Excavating Co. v.
Perry Twp. (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 148, 606 N.E.2d 1067. The statute was designed to
chill egregious, overzealous, unjustifiable and frivolous action. Oakley v. Nolan, Athens
App. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Miller v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-2905.]
COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL W. MILLER, ET AL. JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellees Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 11CA020 ATLEE J. MILLER, ET AL.
Defendant-Appellants OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas Court, Case No. 09CV094
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 26, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellees For Defendant-Appellants
GRANT A. MASON CRAIG T. CONLEY CHRISTINA I. SMITH 604 Huntington Plaza Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling Ltd. 220 Market Avenue South The Lincoln Bulding Canton, Ohio 44702 88 S. Monroe Street Millersburg, Ohio 44654 Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Atlee J. Miller, et al. appeal the November 2, 2011
Judgment Entry entered by the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas, which denied
their motion for frivolous conduct sanctions against plaintiffs-appellees Paul W. Miller,
Kimberly Miller, and Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling, Ltd.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} The instant appeal surrounds a line fence/tree line (hereinafter “disputed
line”) which separates the properties owned by the parties herein. Appellants Atlee
Miller, Viola Miller, and James Miller are the current owners of the property located on
the north side of the disputed line. Appellants Atlee and Viola Miller acquired their
property in 1966. Appellant James Miller acquired a life interest in the property in 1996.
Appellees Paul and Kimberly Miller own the parcel of property located on the south side
of the disputed line. In January, 2001, Appellees acquired their property which had
been owned by Appellee Paul Miller’s parents, Raymond and Esther Miller, since 1974.
{¶3} On June 9, 2009, after a land survey included the disputed line in the legal
description of Appellants’ property, Appellees Paul and Kimberly Miller brought the
instant action asserting ownership of the disputed line under the legal theories of
adverse possession and acquiescence. Appellee Miller, Mast, Mason & Bowling, Ltd.
served as legal counsel for Appellees Miller throughout the trial proceedings.
{¶4} The trial court conducted a preliminary injunction hearing on June 29,
2009. Testimony at the hearing revealed the disputed line has been in place since
1952. In an affidavit presented to the court, Raymond Miller averred the disputed line
had not changed since 1974, when he purchased the property. Raymond Miller also Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 3
stated Appellant Atlee Miller and his sons maintained the disputed line, and both
neighbors farmed as close as possible to the disputed line without going over it. The
trial court granted preliminary injunction to Appellees via Judgment Entry filed July 6,
2009. Thereafter, Appellants filed an answer and counterclaim. The matter proceeded
through an extensive discovery process.
{¶5} Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2011.
On April 4, 2011, Appellees voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their adverse
possession claim. Appellants filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and/or
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Via Journal Entry filed May 5, 2011, the trial
court denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, finding there were definite
factual issues which needed to be litigated. The matter proceeded to jury trial on June
13, 2011. On the day of trial, Appellants voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their
counterclaim. After hearing all the evidence and deliberating, the jury found in favor of
Appellants.
{¶6} Appellant filed a motion for frivolous conduct sanctions on June 18, 2011,
which the trial court denied via Judgment Entry filed November 2, 2011. It is from this
judgment entry Appellants appeal, assigning as error:
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DENIAL OF
DEFENDANT’S/APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SANCTIONS.”
I
{¶8} Herein, Appellants challenge the trial court’s conclusion Appellees “had
filed a good faith complaint.” Appellants submit such finding was erroneous as the
Complaint was predicated upon material falsehoods and false testimony. Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 4
{¶9} R.C. 2323.51 provides a court may award court costs, reasonable attorney
fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the civil action or
appeal to any party to the civil action or appeal who was adversely affected by frivolous
conduct. R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a) defines “frivolous conduct” as follows:
{¶10} “(i) * * * [conduct that] serves merely to harass or maliciously injure
another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including,
but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of
litigation.
{¶11} “(ii) * * * [conduct that] is not warranted under existing law and cannot be
supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law.
{¶12} “(iii) * * * [conduct that] consists of allegations or other factual contentions
that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, are not likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”
{¶13} A motion for sanctions brought under R.C. 2323.51 requires a three-step
analysis by the trial court. The trial court must determine (1) whether the party engaged
in frivolous conduct, (2) if the conduct was frivolous, whether any party was adversely
affected by it and (3) if an award is to be made, the amount of the award. R.C.
2323.51(B)(2)(a). The question of what constitutes frivolous conduct may be either a
factual determination, or a legal determination. Pingue v. Pingue, Delaware App. No.
06-CAE-10-0077, 2007-Ohio-4818, ¶ 20 citing Wiltberger v. Davis (1996), 110 Ohio
App.3d 46, 673 N.E.2d 628. A determination that the conduct is not warranted under
existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 5
modification, or reversal of existing law requires a legal analysis. Lable & Co. v. Flowers
(1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 227, 233, 661 N.E.2d 782. With respect to purely legal issues,
we follow a de novo standard of review and need not defer to the judgment of the trial
court. Wiltberger, supra, at 51-52, 673 N.E.2d 628. However, we do find some degree of
deference appropriate in reviewing a trial court's factual determinations and will not
disturb such factual determinations where the record contains competent, credible
evidence to support such findings. Id.
{¶14} In determining whether conduct is frivolous, the courts must be careful to
apply the statute so that legitimate claims are not chilled. Beaver Excavating Co. v.
Perry Twp. (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 148, 606 N.E.2d 1067. The statute was designed to
chill egregious, overzealous, unjustifiable and frivolous action. Oakley v. Nolan, Athens
App. No. 06CA36, 2007-Ohio-4794, ¶ 16 citing Turowski v. Johnson (1990), 68 Ohio
App.3d 704, 706, 589 N.E.2d 462. “Whether a claim is warranted under existing law is
an objective consideration. The test * * * is whether no reasonable lawyer would have
brought the action in light of the existing law. In other words, a claim is frivolous if it is
absolutely clear under the existing law that no reasonable lawyer could argue the
claim.” Pingue, supra, citing Riston v. Butler, 149 Ohio App.3d 390, 777 N.E.2d 857,
2002-Ohio-2308, at ¶ 30, quoting Hickman v. Murray (Mar. 22, 1996), Montgomery App.
No. 15030 (citations omitted).
{¶15} In their Complaint, Appellees claimed the right to the disputed line under
the law of acquiescence.
{¶16} “ * * * The doctrine of acquiescence is applied in instances when adjoining
land owners occupy their respective properties up to a certain line and mutually Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 6
recognize and treat that line as if it is the boundary that separates their properties. See
Robinson v. Armstrong, Guernsey App. No. 03CA12, 2004–Ohio–1463, at ¶ 35;
McConachie v. Meeks (Sep. 21, 1999), Richland App. No. 98CA90; Turpen v. O'Dell
(Oct. 14, 1998), Washington App. No. 97CA2300. Acquiescence rests on the practical
reality that oftentimes, the true boundary line location is uncertain and neighbors may
themselves establish boundaries. Richardson v. Winegardner (Nov. 2, 1999), Allen App.
No. 1–99–56. To apply this doctrine: (1) adjoining landowners must treat a specific line
as the boundary; and (2) the line must be so treated for a period of years, usually the
period required for adverse possession. Robinson, supra at ¶ 35; Matheson v. Morog
(Feb. 2, 2001), Erie App. No. E–00–17; McGregor v. Hanson (Jun. 16, 2000), Geauga
App. No. 99–G–2228.” Burkitt v. Shepherd, Pike App. No. 05CA754, 2006–Ohio–3673,
at ¶ 15.
{¶17} On Verdict Form No. 1, the jury answered the following interrogatory in the
negative: “Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that [Appellees] and their
predecessors and [Appellants] and their predecessors established the fence line/tree
line as the boundary between the two properties?”1 We find the fact the jury did not find
there was clear and convincing evidence the parties had established the disputed line
as the boundary between their properties does not automatically necessitate a finding
Appellees’ action in bringing the suit was frivolous. Appellees presented evidence
which, if believed, supported their claim. The jury merely found Appellees’ evidence did
not rise to the level of clear and convincing.
1 On the verdict form, the words “property line” are handwritten between the words “the” and “boundary”. Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 7
{¶18} R.C. 2323.51 does not purport to punish a party for raising an
unsuccessful claim. Rather, it addresses conduct that serves to harass or maliciously
injure the opposing party in a civil action or is unwarranted under existing law and for
which no good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law
may be maintained. Independent Taxicab Assoc. of Columbus, Inc. v. Abate, Franklin
App. No. 08AP-44, 2008-Ohio-4070, ¶ 22; Ferron v. Video Professor, Inc., Delaware
App. No. 08-CAE-09-0055, 2009-Ohio-3133, ¶ 44. We find the record before us is
devoid of any evidence Appellees’ conduct was meant to harass or maliciously injure
Appellants or was unwarranted under existing law. The fact Appellees may have
offered contradictory or inconsistent evidence regarding their use of their property does
not necessarily equate or mandate a finding of frivolous conduct. After reviewing
Appellants’ arguments based upon the Exhibits presented at trial and the testimonial
evidence as to the actual use of the disputed property we do not find the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion for sanctions.
{¶19} Appellants’ sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶20} The judgment of the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS Holmes County, Case No. 11CA020 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL W. MILLER, ET AL. : : Plaintiff-Appellees : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : ATLEE J. MILLER, ET AL. : : Defendant-Appellants : Case No. 11CA020
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, The judgment of the
Holmes County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellants.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS