Allen v. Milligan
2023 Ohio 917 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct is not frivolous under R.C. 2323.51 if it is not for an improper purpose and a reasonable lawyer could argue the claim under existing law, even if the legal strategy is unconventional and a related case is pending in a different court.
Facts:
- Thomas McNiece died intestate (without a will) while owning a one-half oil and gas interest under 144 acres of property in Belmont County, Ohio.
- Elizabeth Allen, Paula Milligan, and Jacqueline Milligan (Allen et al.) claim to be the only surviving lineal descendants of Thomas McNiece's grandparents.
- Chester R. Kemp and the other appellants (Kemp et al.) are the surface owners of the 144 acres.
- Kemp et al. took steps under Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) to have the oil and gas interest declared abandoned and transferred to themselves.
- On November 2, 2012, a document was recorded indicating the mineral interest was abandoned and that Kemp et al. were the new grantees.
- Kemp et al. subsequently leased the oil and gas interests to a drilling company.
- A separate lawsuit was already pending between Allen et al. and Kemp et al. in the Belmont County Common Pleas Court General Division concerning quiet title to the same oil and gas interests under the DMA.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Allen et al. (Appellees) filed a complaint in the Belmont County Probate Court, a trial-level court, to be declared the legal heirs to certain oil and gas interests.
- Chester R. Kemp et al. (Appellants) successfully moved to intervene in the probate case.
- The probate court stayed (paused) its proceedings pending the outcome of a related quiet title lawsuit between the same parties in the Belmont County Common Pleas Court, General Division.
- Allen et al. then voluntarily dismissed their probate court complaint.
- Following the dismissal, Kemp et al. filed a post-judgment motion in the probate court for sanctions, arguing the initial complaint by Allen et al. was frivolous conduct.
- The probate court denied the motion for sanctions.
- Kemp et al. appealed the denial of their sanctions motion to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does filing a complaint in probate court to determine heirship to mineral rights, while a separate quiet title action concerning the same rights is pending in another court, constitute frivolous conduct warranting sanctions under Ohio R.C. 2323.51?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanni, J.
No. Filing a complaint in probate court to determine heirship to mineral rights does not constitute frivolous conduct under these circumstances. The court found that the complaint filed by Allen et al. was a legitimate, albeit unconventional, step to establish their standing as heirs, a matter squarely within the probate court's jurisdiction. The complaint was filed pursuant to Ohio's Statute of Descent and Distribution and did not ask the probate court to rule on the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), which was the subject of the separate General Division case. The test for frivolous conduct is objective and asks whether 'no reasonable lawyer would have brought the action.' Here, since establishing heirship was a necessary predicate for Allen et al. to pursue their claim in the other court, it was not 'absolutely clear' that no reasonable lawyer would have filed the probate action. Therefore, the filing was not egregious conduct designed merely to harass or increase costs, and the probate court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to prove 'frivolous conduct' under Ohio law, distinguishing between truly egregious litigation tactics and merely unconventional or multi-forum legal strategies. It clarifies that an action is not frivolous simply because it addresses only one piece of a larger dispute or because a more direct legal route might exist in another court. The ruling protects litigants' ability to use specialized courts, like a probate court, for their intended purposes (e.g., determining heirship) without fear of sanctions, even when that action is a strategic component of a larger, more complex case being litigated elsewhere. This preserves a degree of strategic flexibility for attorneys while reserving sanctions for conduct that is truly without legal or factual merit.
