Frigo v. Steiner

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Frigo v. Steiner, 2004-Ohio-3056.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRED R. FRIGO Plaintiff-Appellant -vsDUANE STEINER Defendant-Appellee : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon: W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon: John W. Wise, J. Hon: Julie A. Edwards, J. Case No. 03-CA-111 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2003-CV0450H JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 8, 2004 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee FRED FRIGO PRO SE #38636060 Box 1000 Federal Correctional Instit. Milam, MI 48160 H. FRANK MCDANIEL, JR. 54 East Main Street Norwalk, OH 44857 Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff Fred R. Frigo appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which dismissed his complaint brought against defendant Duane Steiner as barred by the statute of limitations. {¶2} Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court: {¶3} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN GRANTING STEINER S MOTION TO DISMISS SINCE THE COMPLAINT OF LIBEL WAS TIMELY FILED ON 414-2003. {¶4} In its judgment entry dismissing the action, filed November 8, 2003, the trial court found appellant filed his complaint on May 9, 2003. In the complaint, appellant alleged appellee had libeled him in April, 2002. The trial court found Ohio law required the appellant to file his complaint within one year. {¶5} Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint, and appellant responded by alleging he had prepared his complaint early in April, before the statute of limitations had expired, but the complaint had somehow been delayed in the mailing process, and not received by the clerk of courts until May 9, 2003. {¶6} The trial court concluded R.C. 2305.11 requires a complaint for libel, slander, or malicious prosecution must be commenced within a year after the cause of action occurred. For this reason, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. {¶7} Our standard of reviewing a trial court s dismissal pursuant to Civ. R. 12 (B)(6) is de novo, because it presents a question of law. {¶8} The complaint states the alleged libel publications occurred on April 22, 2002 and April 23, 2002. The complaint was filed on May 9, 2003. Ohio law recognizes the doctrine of equitable tolling of an applicable statute of limitations only upon a showing of actual or constructive fraud by a party, for example, by representing the statute of limitations was longer than it actually was, promising a better settlement if a lawsuit was not filed, or other similar misrepresentations or conduct, see, e.g. Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland (1998), 126 Ohio App. 3d 399. {¶9} We find the trial court did not err in holding the statute of limitations had run on this complaint. {¶10} The assignment of error is overruled. {¶11} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed. By Gwin, P.J., Wise, J., and Edwards, J., concur ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ JUDGES WSG:clw 0507 [Cite as Frigo v. Steiner, 2004-Ohio-3056.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRED R. FRIGO Plaintiff-Appellant -vsDUANE STEINER Defendant-Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 03-CA-111 {¶12} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to appellant. _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ JUDGES

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.