Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Grande Voiture D'Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux

[Cite as Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Grande Voiture D'Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux,
2021-Ohio-2784.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
HUBER HEIGHTS VETERANS CLUB, :
INC. :
: Appellate Case No. 29095
Plaintiff-Appellant :
: Trial Court Case No. 2021-CV-1227
v. :
: (Civil Appeal from
GRANDE VOITURE D’OHIO LA : Common Pleas Court)
SOCIETE DES 40 HOMMES ET 8 :
CHEVAUX, et al. :
Defendants-Appellees
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 13th day of August, 2021.
...........
CHARLES J. SIMPSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0007339, 157 Lammes Lane, New Carlisle, Ohio
45344
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant, Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc.
KEVIN A. BOWMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0068223, 130 West Second Street, Suite 900,
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe des 40
Hommes et 8 Chevaux
EDWARD J. DOWD, Atty. Reg. No. 0018681 & CHRISTOPHER T. HERMAN, Atty. Reg.
No. 0076894, 8163 Old Yankee Street, Suite C, Dayton, Ohio 45458
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, Voiture Nationale La Societe des 40 Hommes
et 8 Chevaux
-2-
.............
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. (“HHVC”) appeals from a judgment of the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment to
Grande Voiture d’Ohio La Societe des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux (“Grande Voiture”) and
Voiture Nationale la Societe des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux (“Voiture Nationale”) on
HHVC’s claims for “Theft of Chattels and Damages to Property.” The trial court
concluded that HHVC’s claims were barred by res judicata. For the following reasons,
the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} This appeal represents the latest in a long line of appeals involving the
national, state, and local levels of The Forty and Eight, a veterans association. We have
detailed the facts underlying the various disputes in our prior opinions, and we summarize
them here.
{¶ 3} The Forty and Eight has a hierarchical structure consisting of a national
organization and associated state and local organizations. Voiture Nationale is the
national organization, and Grande Voiture is the Ohio state-level organization.
Montgomery Voiture Locale No. 34 La Societe des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux (“Voiture
Locale”) is the county-level organization in Montgomery County. HHVC purports to be a
successor organization to Voiture Locale that is no longer associated with The Forty and
Eight.
{¶ 4} At some point, Voiture Locale began engaging in conduct that was contrary
to the constitution, bylaws, and other governing documents of the national and state-level
-3-
organizations. Among other things, Voiture Locale adopted an amended constitution,
elected a new board of governors under that amended constitution, created an auxiliary
membership, and failed to pay national dues.
{¶ 5} In 2017, Grande Voiture initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against
Charles Simpson, one of the local organization’s officers under the new constitution, and
permanently expelled him from membership for life. Following that determination,
Voiture Locale resolved to prohibit Grande Voiture officials from entering Voiture Locale’s
premises, located at 4214 Powell Road in Huber Heights. Another member of Voiture
Locale, however, filed a criminal trespass complaint against Simpson with the Huber
Heights police.
{¶ 6} In 2018, Grande Voiture brought an action against Voiture Locale seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, and an accounting. Montgomery C.P. No. 2018-CV-
1457. Voiture Locale filed a counterclaim against Grande Voiture and a third-party
complaint against Voiture Nationale, alleging that Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale
engaged in actions to wrongfully take possession and control of its property, as well as
extortion, coercion, libel, slander and defamation.
{¶ 7} On April 28, 2019, the trial court in Case No. 2018-CV-1457 granted
summary judgment to Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale. The court noted: “The
evidence in the record is undisputed that Montgomery Voiture Locale No. 34 has violated
numerous provisions of the state and national constitutions and is now being run by
nonmembers of the 40 and 8, such as Defendant Simpson, who was expelled
permanently from membership.” The trial court held that Voiture Locale was bound by
the constitutions of the organization at the national, state, and local levels, as well as the
-4-
other rules promulgated by the national and state-level organizations.
{¶ 8} The court voided all actions taken by Voiture Locale that were in violation
of those constitutions, invalidated Voiture Locale’s amended constitution, and
dissolved the purported board of directors appointed under that constitution. The
court further granted an injunction, which, among other things, barred Simpson from
participating in or interfering with the affairs of Voiture Locale. (See Motion for
Summary Judgment, Ex. A.) We affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Grande Voiture
D’Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux v. Montgomery Cty. Voiture No. 34
La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28388, 2020-
Ohio-3821.
{¶ 9} Despite the trial court’s rulings, Simpson (a licensed attorney) has continued
to act ostensibly on behalf of Voiture Locale, either as a purported officer or as an attorney
retained by the now-dissolved board of directors. These actions have included filing a
forcible entry and detainer action in municipal court (see Motion for Summary Judgment,
Ex. E), a bankruptcy petition for Voiture Locale in bankruptcy court (see id., Ex. D), and
additional litigation in common pleas court (see id., Ex. F). Several of the lawsuits
challenged conduct by Grande Voiture officials with respect to the local organization’s
property. In addition, based on Simpson’s belief that Voiture Locale was a non-profit
corporation under Ohio law that was separate and apart from The Forty and Eight,
Simpson filed paperwork to change the name of Voiture Locale to the Huber Heights
Veterans Club (HHVC) and to have the Powell Road property retitled in that name. See
id., Ex. B.
{¶ 10} To date, Simpson has been unsuccessful at every turn. The municipal
-5-
court, bankruptcy court, and common pleas court actions were resolved based on res
judicata and/or due to Simpson’s lack of authority to act on behalf of Voiture Locale.
(Motion for Summary Judgment, Ex. D-F.) The trial court in Case No. 2018-CR-1457
held Simpson in contempt for continuing to act as an officer of Locale Voiture and as
counsel for the organization. (Id., Ex. B.) The court declared the new deed in HHVC’s
name to be invalid and ordered Simpson to restore title to Voiture Locale. We have
affirmed the trial court’s orders in Case No. 2018-CR-1457 related to contempt and
sanctions and to correct record title. Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe des 40 Hommes
et 8 Chevaux v. Montgomery Cty. Voiture No. 34 La Societe des 40 Hommes et 8
Chevaux, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28854, 2021-Ohio-1430. We have also affirmed that
court’s order authorizing Grande Voiture to restore the prior name (Voiture Locale) with
the Ohio Secretary of State. Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes et 8
Chevaux v. Montgomery Cty. Voiture No. 34 La Societe Des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29064, 2021-Ohio-2429.
{¶ 11} The present action was initiated by HHVC in March 2021. In its complaint,
HHVC stated that on March 5, 2021, Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale conducted a
private sale of HHVC’s personal property, located at 4214 Powell Road. HHVC alleged
that the transfer and other disposition of the personal property was done “without notice
to or consent of Plaintiff, the owner of the items of property.” HHVC further alleged that
Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale removed, sold, or otherwise disposed of
“memorabilia, monuments, documents, records and other items whose value cannot be
readily determined and cannot be replaced by other item[s].” HHVC also claimed that
Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale permitted or caused damage to the “structures,
-6-
fixtures, and attachments” located on the Powell Road property.
{¶ 12} On April 2, 2021, Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale jointly responded
with a motion for summary judgment, claiming that HHVC’s complaint was barred by res
judicata. They attached documents from prior litigation involving the parties, including a
hearing transcript from the bankruptcy court (Exhibit D), three judgment entries from Case
No. 2018-CV-1457 (Exhibits A-C), the municipal court judgment entry (Exhibit E), and the
judgment entry from Case No. 2020-CV-2183 (Exhibit F). The attorney for Grande
Voiture filed an affidavit describing the prior proceedings and authenticating the exhibits.
{¶ 13} HHVC opposed the motion, arguing the prior actions were irrelevant, that
the trial court was not permitted to take judicial notice of proceedings in other cases, and
that res judicata did not apply. HHVC further asserted that Grande Voiture and Voiture
Nationale did not follow the proper procedures when they failed to answer the complaint
and, instead, sought to “avoid the claim and deny to [HHVC] its constitutional right of
access to the courts and due process of law.”
{¶ 14} On April 14, 2021, the trial court sustained the motion for summary
judgment and ordered the complaint dismissed. The trial court reasoned, in relevant
part:
The central matter in this case (Case No. 2021 CV 1227) involves
whether Huber Heights Club lawfully possessed the property at 4214 Powell
Road. In order to prevail on its Complaint for Theft of Chattels, Huber
Heights Club must establish “an intentional exercise of dominion or control
over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to
control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value
-7-
of the chattel.” Vienna Beauty Prods. Co. v. Cook, 2015-Ohio-5017, 53
N.E.3d 808, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). Thus, in order for Huber Heights Club to
prevail on its causes of action in this case, it must establish a right to control
the property at issue. This right to control was also central to and was
adjudicated in Judge Wiseman’s case, in Judge Parker’s case and in Judge
Hensley’s case. All three Judges have already found that Huber Heights
Club has no right to possess or control the property at 4214 Powell Road,
Huber Heights, Ohio. The determination of Huber Heights Club’s right to
control falls squarely within the issue preclusion concept of res judicata.
Issue preclusion “serves to prevent relitigation of any fact or point that was
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous action between
the same parties or their privies.” O’Nesti, 2007-Ohio-1102 at ¶ 7.
Furthermore, “[i]ssue preclusion applies even if the causes of action differ.”
Id. Therefore, Huber Heights Club’s complaint is barred by res judicata.
{¶ 15} HHVC appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising three assignments of
error. We will address them in a manner that facilitates our analysis.
II. Res Judicata
{¶ 16} HHVC’s first and second assignments of error state:
1. The trial court erred in taking notice of and considering as evidence
matters concerned in other cases not before the Court.
2. The Court erred in its finding of res judicata from prior litigation as a bar
to the present action and in granting summary judgment to Defendants.
{¶ 17} HHVC raised nearly identical arguments in its appeal in Huber Heights
-8-
Veterans Club, Inc. v. Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux,
et al., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29078, 2021-Ohio-2695. There, we rejected HHVC’s
claim that the trial court improperly considered the documents that were attached to the
motions for summary judgment and authenticated by counsel’s affidavit. Because this
case involves the same procedural posture, including several of the same documents as
exhibits, we similarly reject HHVC’s argument here. HHVC’s first assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 18} We further find no error in the trial court’s application of the doctrine of res
judicata. The doctrine of res judicata consists of two parts: (1) claim preclusion (estoppel
by judgment) and (2) issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). Hicks v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 2017-Ohio-7095, 95 N.E.3d 852, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). Claim preclusion
prevents later actions by the same parties based on a claim arising out of a transaction
that was the subject of a previous lawsuit. O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio
St.3d 59, 2007-Ohio-1102, 862 N.E.2d 803, ¶ 6; Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245,
247, 730 N.E.2d 958 (2000). “To determine whether claim preclusion applies, a court
should consider four factors: (1) whether there is a prior valid judgment on the merits; (2)
whether the latter action involves the same parties, or their privies, as the prior action; (3)
whether the latter action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior
action; and (4) whether both actions arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.”
Newman v. Univ. of Dayton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28815, 2021-Ohio-1609, ¶ 23.
{¶ 19} In contrast, issue preclusion stops re-litigation of any fact or point that was
determined by the court in a previous suit between the same parties. O’Nesti at ¶ 7; Fort
Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395,
-9-
692 N.E.2d 140 (1998). “Issue preclusion applies even if the causes of action differ.”
Id.{¶ 20} In this case, the trial court focused on HHVC’s relationship to the real and
personal property located at 4214 Powell Road and concluded that issue preclusion
applied to prevent relitigation of that issue. Upon review of the judgment entries
provided, it is clear that prior courts have determined that HHVC has no lawful interest in
the real and personal property at issue.
{¶ 21} At the outset, we emphasize that HHVC does not lawfully exist as a
successor to Voiture Locale. Indeed, it is not the same group of people as Voiture
Locale, the legitimate county-level organization of The Forty and Eight. HHVC appears
to consist of former members of Voiture Locale, including Simpson, whose leadership
authority in Voiture Locale was terminated by the trial court in Case No. 2018-CV-1457.
{¶ 22} HHVC’s counsel, Simpson, has repeatedly argued – including again during
oral argument in this case – that Voiture Locale is “both an organization that is part of the
national organization and a corporation that is a separate entity, separate and distinct
from the national organization.” See, e.g., Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe des 40
Hommes et 8 Chevaux, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28854, 2021-Ohio-1430, at ¶ 10. As
we have previously stated, "Simpson’s position is that it is the organization that is subject
to the trial court’s injunction, not the corporation, and that he acted for the corporation, of
which he remains and officer and member.” Id. Simpson again asserts that the
corporation owns the Powell Road property and everything in it. The trial court expressly
rejected the “independent status” argument in Case No. 2018-CV-1457, a fact that we
previously recognized. See id. at ¶ 11.
-10-
{¶ 23} The trial court in Case No. 2018-CV-1457 specifically held that “[a]ll officers
of the Montgomery County Voiture No. 34 who are not members in good standing,
including Charles Simpson, or who have not been elected pursuant to the County Voiture
Constitution as in effect prior to the unapproved amended constitution are hereby barred
from further action as officers of the organization.” HHVC attempted to change the name
of Voiture Locale to HHVC and to retitle the Powell Road property in HHVC’s name, but
those efforts subsequently were voided by the common pleas court as violative of the
injunction. With court approval, Grande Voiture restored title to the Powell Road property
to Voiture Locale’s name and has been authorized to restore Voiture Locale’s name with
the Ohio Secretary of State.
{¶ 24} In short, the trial court in Case No. 2018-CV-1457 determined that the
property located at 4214 Powell Road belongs to Voiture Locale, the legitimate county-
level affiliate of The Forty and Eight, and that Simpson and the other former board
members under the unauthorized amended constitution have no authority with respect to
that property. It is thus now well established that HHVC, the alleged unaffiliated non-
profit corporation of which Simpson is a part, has no legal rights to the property at Powell
Road, and Simpson has no authority to pursue claims on behalf of Voiture Locale. Under
the issue preclusion aspect of res judicata, HHVC cannot relitigate these issues here.
{¶ 25} Upon review of the judgment entries submitted in support of the motion for
summary judgment, HHVC has no viable claims in this action. Accordingly, the trial court
did not err in granting summary judgment to Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale based
on res judicata. HHVC’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III. Access to Courts
-11-
{¶ 1} In its third assignment of error, HHVC claims that the trial court’s decision
denied HHVC “its constitutional right of access to the courts and due process of law.” It
argues that the trial court denied it due process by not requiring Grande Voiture and
Voiture Nationale to file answers raising res judicata as an affirmative defense. HHVC
further asserts that the trial court did not require proof of the defense of res judicata.
{¶ 2} The right to access to Ohio’s court system is provided in Article I, Section 16
of the Ohio Constitution. That section provides, in part, “All courts shall be open, and
every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have
remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.”
Although the provision “does not speak to ‘due process’ at all,” the Ohio Supreme Court
has treated it as equivalent to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., 155 Ohio St.3d 567,
2018-Ohio-5088, 122 N.E.3d 1228, ¶ 12.
{¶ 3} We find no constitutional deprivation in this case. HHVC filed a complaint in
the common pleas court, and Grande Voiture and Voiture Nationale responded by way of
a motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion was supported by an
affidavit and exhibits, to which HHVC had an opportunity to respond. While the trial
court’s procedure was expedient, HHVC was provided notice of the res judicata claim and
had an opportunity to respond to it. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment, based
on evidentiary materials provided in support of the motion, did not deny HHVC access to
the courts.
{¶ 4} HHVC’s third assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
-12-
{¶ 5} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, P. J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Charles J. Simpson
Kevin A. Bowman
Edward J. Dowd
Christopher T. Herman
Hon. Michael W. Krumholtz