Janet Weyandt v. Tim Davis, 96-LW-4138
| Decision Date | 24 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | 96-LW-4138,17642 |
| Parties | JANET WEYANDT, Appellant v. TIM DAVIS, ET AL., Appellees C.A. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE NO. 95-4-1246
DECISION
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Plaintiff Janet Weyandt has appealed from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed her complaint for a declaratory judgment against the State of Ohio, the Summit County Executive, the Summit County Auditor the Summit County Recorder, and the members of the Summit County Council. By her complaint, she sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants had illegally and unconstitutionally abolished land registration within Summit County. Her sole assignment of error on appeal is that the trial court incorrectly granted defendants' motions to dismiss because she had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. This Court affirms the judgment of the trial court insofar as it is related to the State of Ohio and the claim that land registration within Summit County was unconstitutionally abolished because, even though plaintiff's complaint did state a claim upon which relief in the form of a declaratory judgment could be granted, the trial court's error in granting the State of Ohio's motion to dismiss was harmless inasmuch as it declared plaintiff's rights in relationship to the State of Ohio and, accepting the factual averments of plaintiff's complaint as true, the abolishment of land registration within Summit County was not a violation of either the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution. This Court reverses the trial court's judgment insofar as it is related to the remaining defendants and the claim that land registration within Summit County was illegally abolished however, because the trial court failed to declare plaintiff's rights based upon her claim that the county defendants did not provide proper notice to owners of registered land of the proceedings to abolish land registration.
The "Torrens law," Sections 5310.01 through 5310.21 of the Ohio Revised Code, provides a system pursuant to which title to land is registered as opposed to evidence of title and matters affecting title being recorded as is done pursuant to the general recording laws. Although most land in Ohio falls within the recording laws, some, including some within Summit County, has been registered land.
Effective February 28, 1991, the Ohio Legislature, by Sections 5310.31 through 5310.54 of the Ohio Revised Code, authorized counties within Ohio to abolish registration of land within their jurisdictions. On February 6, 1995, the Summit County Council adopted a resolution abolishing registration of land within Summit County.
Plaintiff commenced this action against the Summit County Executive, the Summit County Auditor, the Summit County Recorder, and the members of the Summit County Council on April 5, 1995. On April 17, 1995, the defendants named in plaintiff's original complaint moved the trial court to dismiss her action against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On September 13, 1995, plaintiff filed an amended complaint by which she added the State of Ohio as a defendant.
By her amended complaint, plaintiff averred that she was the owner of registered land within Summit County. She further averred that, the State of Ohio, "through its legislature[,] enacted statutes permitting counties to abolish registered land RC 5310.01 et seq." She asserted that the statutes enacted by the legislature were unconstitutional under the Ohio and the United States Constitutions. She further averred that the county defendants "passed an ordinance on February 6, 1995[,] abolishing registered land in Summit County." According to plaintiff, the county defendants "failed to properly notify the members of the class of land owners in accordance with the statute." Plaintiff prayed for the following relief:
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests this Court to declare defendants' actions in abolishing land registration in Summit County illegal and unconstitutional and to order the defendants to continue land registration and grant a temporary and permanent injunction against the abolition of registered land in Summit County.
On October 13, 1995, the State of Ohio moved for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss on December 15, 1995, based upon its conclusion that plaintiff's "challenges to the constitutionality of Sections 5310.31 through 5310.54 are without merit." On December 28, 1995, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order by which it amended its December 15, 1995, order to provide that plaintiff's claims were dismissed against all the defendants. Plaintiff timely appealed to this Court.
Plaintiff's sole assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly granted defendants' motions to dismiss because she had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. As noted previously, by her amended complaint, plaintiff had requested that the trial court "declare defendants' actions in abolishing land registration in Summit County illegal and unconstitutional."
Pursuant to Section 2721.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, any person affected by a constitutional provision or statute "may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such * * * constitutional provision [or] statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder." A complaint by which a declaratory judgment has been sought is not properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based upon a conclusion that the plaintiff's position on the merits of his or her claim is incorrect. Rather, such a complaint may only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if: (1) no real controversy or justiciable issue exists between the parties; or (2) the declaratory judgment will not terminate the uncertainty or controversy. Miller v. Summit County Bd. of Education (April 7, 1993), Summit App. No. 15847, unreported at 3, citing, Fioresi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 203, 203-04. Otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of the parties' rights. Miller, supra at 3.
In this case, the trial court did not dismiss plaintiff's claims based upon a determination that there was no real controversy or justiciable issue between the parties or because a declaratory judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy. Accordingly, the trial court incorrectly granted defendants' motions to dismiss. A trial court's error in dismissing a complaint by which a declaratory judgment is sought is harmless, however, if, in its judgment, the trial court has actually granted the declaratory relief requested by the plaintiff. Id.; See Meek v. City National Bank & Trust Co. (1940), 65 Ohio App. 349, 362; But, see, Bruckman v. Bruckman Co. (1938), 60 Ohio App. 361. It is necessary, therefore, for this Court to determine whether the trial court declared plaintiff's rights, status, and other legal relations in its order dismissing her complaint and, if so, whether it did so correctly, accepting the factual averments of plaintiff's complaint as true.[1]
Plaintiff has argued that Sections 5310.31 through 5310.54 of the Ohio Revised Code are...
To continue reading
Request your trial