State ex rel. Harris v. Toledo, 95-809

• Decision Date: 15 November 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-809,95-809
• Citation: 656 N.E.2d 334,74 Ohio St.3d 36
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. HARRIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 36

74 Ohio St.3d 36

656 N.E.2d 334

The STATE ex rel. HARRIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellee.

No. 95-809.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1995.

Decided Nov. 15, 1995.

Appellant, William Harris, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling appellee, city of Toledo, to return possession of a truck in which Harris has equitable title. Harris alleged that the city had refused to return his truck, although he was the equitable owner of the vehicle and had paid sales taxes on it.

The court of appeals dismissed the complaint sua sponte, without requiring any response under Loc.App.R. 6 of the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals determined:

"Relator alleges that the city of Toledo has possession of a truck for which he paid taxes, and that the city will not release possession of the truck. No further explanation is known to this court regarding why the city has possession of the truck. Without this vital information, this court is in no position to determine that relator has met the three requirements for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, relator's application for a writ of mandamus is denied."

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

William Harris, pro se.

Mark S. Schmollinger, Toledo Director of Law, and Lourdes Santiago, Senior Attorney, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Harris had the burden to prove a clear legal right to recovery of the truck, a clear legal duty on the part of the city to return the truck to him, and the absence of a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Donaldson v. Alfred (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 327, 329, 612 N.E.2d 717, 719. Sua sponte dismissal without notice is generally improper and is allowed only where the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801.

It is evident that the court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action sua sponte based on its determination that Harris had not alleged specific facts relating to his alleged clear legal right to recovery of the truck and corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the city to return the truck to him. Similarly, the city contends on appeal that the dismissal should be affirmed because the complaint contained unsupported conclusions, which are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

The court of appeals required that the relator "me[e]t the three requirements for a writ of mandamus" in his complaint. However, a plaintiff or relator is not required to prove his or her case at the pleading stage and need only give reasonable notice of the claim. Id. at 109, 647 N.E.2d at 802. Nevertheless, as we recently observed in State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 647 N.E.2d 804, 806, this court has modified the general standard of notice pleading by requiring the pleading of specific facts rather than mere unsupported conclusions in certain limited areas. As in Williams Ford Sales, supra, "[t]his case does not fall within one of the * * * limited exceptions to the general rule requiring notice pleading."

Therefore, the court of appeals erred in requiring that Harris plead more specific facts as to the clear legal right and clear legal duty he alleged in his complaint in order to withstand...