from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 16
Law Office of Bryan D. Thomas, LLC, and Bryan D. Thomas, for
Brief: Arenstein & Andersen Co., L.PA., and Nicholas I.
Andersen and Jessica L. Sohner, for appellees.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Bret Adams, appeals from the
June 23, 2016 decision and judgment entry of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the
court of common pleas.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} Adams filed a complaint against
defendants-appellees, Christine Margarum and Patricia Pappas
alleging fraud and civil conspiracy. Specifically, Adams
alleged that on March 4, 2014, he and Margarum agreed to pay
Pappas $100, 000 on or before May 3, 2014 under the terms of
a promissory note. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) A copy of the note
was attached to the complaint.
3} The complaint also alleged that, on November 6,
2014, Pappas filed a complaint in the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas (Franklin C.P. No. 14 CV 11486) claiming that
Adams breached the terms of the note. (Compl. at ¶ 6.)
Pappas did not name Margarum as a party in the lawsuit.
4} A bench trial was held, and Margarum testified
that she was not liable under the terms of the note and that
she did not execute the note. (Compl. at ¶ 8, 9.)
5} Adams alleged in the complaint that he was
present when Margarum executed the note. (Compl. at ¶
6} Adams alleged that Margarum and Pappas committed
fraud because Pappas never intended to receive any payments
from Margarum pursuant to the terms of the note, in part,
because Margarum is Pappas' daughter. (Compl. at ¶
11, 14.) In support of his claim, Adams stated that:
[Margarum and Pappas] committed fraud by making certain
statements and/or representations to [Adams], as detailed in
the foregoing paragraphs. Specifically, when the Note was
executed by Plaintiff [Adams] and Defendant Pappas (sic) on
March 4, 2014, Defendant Pappas never intended to receive any
payments from Defendant Margarum pursuant to the terms of the
(Compl. at ¶ 14.) Adams further alleged that the fraud
"allegation is unequivocally supported by the fact that
Defendant Pappas did not make Defendant Margarum in the
lawsuit as a Defendant." (Compl. at ¶ 16.)
7} At the time Adams filed his complaint, no
decision had been issued in Franklin C.P. No. 14 ...