O'Toole v. Hamman, 109193
| Decision Date | 01 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 109193,109193 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 4753 |
| Parties | MICHAEL O'TOOLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSEMARY O. HAMMAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Appearances:
Michael E. Stinn, for appellees Michael O'Toole and Colleen Neiden.
Thomas O'Toole, pro se.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Thomas O'Toole, appeals the trial court's judgment awarding $13,747.10 in sanctions against him for frivolous conduct. Appellant raises two assignments of error for our review:
{¶ 2} Finding no merit to his assignments of error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶ 3} This is the second time appellant has asked this court to reverse a sanctions award against him for frivolous conduct. The first time was an appeal from a probate court proceeding, in which we affirmed the trial court's sanction award against appellant for pursuing baseless arguments that three of his siblings, Michael O'Toole ("Michael"), Colleen Neiden ("Neiden"), and Mary Patricia O'Toole ("Mary Pat"), stole assets from their mother before her death in 2016 and had been hiding assets from her estate. See In re Estate of O'Toole, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108122, 2019-Ohio-4165.
{¶ 4} As the probate proceeding was ongoing, Michael filed a complaint in the Parma Municipal Court against appellant and another sibling, Rosemary O'Toole-Hamman ("Hamman"), in February 2018. The complaint states that appellant and Hamman each owe Michael $1,308.73 for their share of property expenses for their mother's house for the twenty months between when the five siblings (appellant, Michael, Neiden, Mary Pat, and Hamman) inherited the house and when they sold it.
{¶ 5} In March 2018, appellant filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint against Michael, Neiden, and Mary Pat. Appellant claimed that Michael and Mary Pat each had joint and survivor accounts with their mother before her death, and that these accounts should be treated as trusts and part of the estate. He alleged that Michael and Mary Pat used these accounts to launder money and to steal assets from their mother and later her estate. He also claimed that Mary Pat fraudulently induced their mother to "cash in" U.S. Savings Bonds before her death and that Michael, Mary Pat, and Neiden (the administrator of the estate) were now hiding assets from the estate. Appellant brought two claims: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, and (2) unjust enrichment for legal services that appellant, a retired attorney, claimed he provided.1 He sought $144,000 in compensatory damages, exceeding the jurisdictional limit of the Parma Municipal Court, and the case was transferred to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division.
{¶ 6} In the common pleas court, Neiden and Mary Pat filed a counterclaim against appellant, alleging that he was engaging in frivolous conduct in violation of R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11. The trial court dismissed the portion of the counterclaim pertaining to Civ.R. 11, finding that Civ.R. 11 violations could not be brought as an independent cause of action.
{¶ 7} In February 2019, Michael, Neiden, and Mary Pat filed motions for summary judgment on appellant's claims. A magistrate determined that judgmentshould be granted in their favor. The magistrate found that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's first claim because issues regarding the administration of the estate were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. The magistrate also found that appellant had no evidence to support either of his claims. As to the unjust enrichment claim, the magistrate explained that there was no attorney-client relationship between appellant and his siblings, and appellant cannot "'secretly' represent people and then demand payment of their legal services." The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, ordered Michael's underlying claim for property expenses to be returned to the Parma Municipal Court, and scheduled a hearing on Neiden and Mary Pat's counterclaim that appellant had engaged in frivolous conduct pursuant to R.C. 2323.51.
{¶ 8} Before the sanctions hearing, Michael filed a motion seeking $17,450 for attorney fees and $3,220.65 for costs pursuant to Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Michael explained that these attorney fees were for legal services performed for Michael, Neiden, and Mary Pat.
{¶ 9} At the sanctions hearing on October 15, 2019, the trial court dismissed Mary Pat's counterclaim because she had passed away in May 2019, and no substitute for her had been made.2 The trial court heard arguments regarding (1) Neiden's counterclaim pursuant to R.C. 2323.51, and (2) Michael's motion pursuant to Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Michael and Neiden argued that appellant wasasserting the same frivolous arguments in this case that he made in probate court, and that the probate court had already decided those issues and sanctioned appellant. Michael and Neiden also presented an expert witness, Joseph Shucofsky, who had been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and who was familiar with the rates of legal fees in northeast Ohio. Shucofsky testified that the legal work that Michael and Neiden's attorney performed was necessary, and that the legal fees they incurred were reasonable and much less than he would have expected. Appellant tried to present the same arguments that he advocated during the probate proceeding. The trial court repeatedly stopped him, reminding him that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over those issues. The trial court warned appellant that his continuous assertion of these arguments "could be considered frivolous conduct."
{¶ 10} The trial court granted Michael's motion for sanctions and granted judgment in favor of Neiden on her counterclaim. The trial court determined that appellant's claims were "obviously made to merely harass and injure his siblings; were unwarranted under existing law; lack evidentiary support; and cannot be reasonably based on a lack of information or belief." The trial court explained that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over appellant's claims and already adjudicated them. The trial court further reasoned that "objectively and subjectively, no reasonable attorney would have filed" the claims, and that appellant's continual pursuit of the claims adversely affected his siblings. The trial court also found that the attorney fees that Michael and Neiden incurred werereasonable and "extremely discounted." Because the trial court dismissed Mary Pat's counterclaim, it awarded Michael and Neiden two thirds of their requested fees and expenses: $11,600 in attorney fees and $2,147.10 in costs, for a total of $13,747.10. The trial court further ordered that appellant pay postjudgment interest at a rate of five percent.
{¶ 11} It is from this judgment that appellant timely appeals.
{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he engaged in frivolous conduct and that the attorney fees Michael and Neiden incurred were reasonable. He repeats his arguments that his siblings stole assets from their mother and later her estate. He maintains that the probate court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over his claim for tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance, citing Sull v. Kaim, 172 Ohio App.3d 297, 2007-Ohio-3269, 874 N.E.2d 865 (8th Dist.), for the proposition that the general division of a common pleas court may have jurisdiction over such a claim. He further contends that the attorney fees were not reasonable because Michael was the one to initiate the lawsuit, and the trial court would not permit appellant to "inquire into the issue" of whether the fees were reasonable. Michael and Neiden argue that they met their burden of showing that appellant's counterclaim and third-party complaint were frivolous because appellant had no factual or legal bases to assert his claims.
{¶ 13} Ohio law provides two separate mechanisms for an aggrieved party to recover attorney fees for frivolous conduct: R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11. Sigmon v. S.W. Gen. Health Ctr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88276, 2007-Ohio-2117, ¶ 14. Although both authorize the award of attorney fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct, they have separate standards of proof and differ in application. Id. In this case, Michael brought his motion for sanctions against appellant under both Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51, and Neiden brought her counterclaim under R.C. 2323.51.
{¶ 14} Both R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11 allow for the imposition of sanctions against a pro se litigant. See Burrell v. Kassicieh, 128 Ohio App.3d 226, 231-232, 714 N.E.2d 442 (3d Dist.1998) (). Under Ohio law, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as all other litigants; that is, they must comply with the rules of procedure and must accept the consequences of their own mistakes. Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363, 676 N.E.2d 171 (8th Dist.1996). The fact that a party is pro se does not shield the party from sanctions when the party engages in frivolous conduct. Burrell at 232. Indeed, a court's refusal to hold a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney who engages in frivolous and egregious conduct would defeat the purpose of R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11: to deter vexatious and harassing litigation. Thus, appellant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial