Summary
The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action brought by a former chapter director against the Arthritis Foundation and the state Attorney General. The court holds that R.C. 109.24 grants the Attorney General exclusive authority to enforce charitable trusts, meaning the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue. The opinion also addresses the trial court's denial of leave to amend, the with-prejudice nature of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal, and the prohibition on an inactive attorney practicing law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff has standing and capacity to enforce a charitable trust under R.C. 109.24.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint and in dismissing the action with prejudice.
- Whether the plaintiff, as an inactive attorney, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by asserting himself as a trustee.
Holdings
- The plaintiff lacks capacity to bring an action to enforce a charitable trust because R.C. 109.24 vests exclusive authority in the attorney general; therefore the dismissal was proper.
- The trial court did not err; denial of leave to amend was proper because the plaintiff failed to file a motion under Civ.R. 7(B)(1), and a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is an adjudication on the merits and may be entered with prejudice.
- The plaintiff would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if he acted as a trustee; the trial court’s finding was correct.
Key quotations
“R.C. 109.24 states: The attorney general shall institute and prosecute a proper action to enforce the performance of any charitable trust, and to restrain the abuse of it whenever he considers such action advisable or if directed to do so by the governor, the supreme court, the general assembly, or either house of the general assembly.” (¶ 13)
“A dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is an involuntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(B).” (¶ 33)
Factual background
Kromer, a former director of the Ohio Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation, sued the Ohio Attorney General and the Arthritis Foundation seeking to enforce the chapter's bylaws and a waiver that limited the use of campaign assets to central Ohio counties. The chapter merged with the Foundation's Great Lakes Region in 2011, and the Foundation later sold the facility built with those assets.
Procedural history
Kromer filed a declaratory judgment action alleging the Arthritis Foundation must keep assets of a dissolved charitable chapter as restricted-use assets. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, citing lack of standing under R.C. 109.24, and entered the dismissal with prejudice. Kromer appealed.