Rolph v. Rolph

Summary

The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviews a summary judgment ruling in a dispute over the transfer of a family farm from a decedent to two of her children. The court addresses whether the plaintiffs' claims involving fraud, undue influence, and intentional interference with an inheritance were barred by res judicata, including whether that affirmative defense was waived when it was not pleaded in the answer. The opinion adopts the view that res judicata is waived if not raised in a responsive pleading or an amendment, and affirms the trial court's judgment on the claims.

Holdings

1. The affirmative defense of res judicata is waived when it is not asserted in a responsive pleading or an amendment to the pleading and is raised for the first time in a motion for summary judgment.
2. Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs' fraud claims because the complaint did not plead fraud with particularity and plaintiffs produced no evidence of specific false statements, knowledge of falsity, or other evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
3. Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs' undue-influence claims because plaintiffs produced no evidence that defendants exerted or attempted to exert improper influence over Gray, even though the evidence concerning Gray's susceptibility or dementia created a factual dispute.
4. Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs' intentional-interference claims because plaintiffs presented no evidence that defendants engaged in fraud, duress, undue influence, or other tortious conduct intentionally interfering with an inheritance expectancy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants waived the affirmative defense of res judicata by failing to assert it in their answer and raising it for the first time in a motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether plaintiffs presented evidence establishing genuine issues of material fact on their fraud claims.
3. Whether plaintiffs presented evidence establishing genuine issues of material fact on their undue-influence claims.
4. Whether plaintiffs presented evidence establishing genuine issues of material fact on their intentional-interference-with-expectancy-of-an-inheritance claim.

Disposition

affirmed