Bunts v. Pilla

[Cite as Bunts v. Pilla, 2025-Ohio-2046.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY LAURA BUNTS, et al., CASE NO. 2024-L-086 Plaintiffs-Appellants, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas MARY LEE PILLA, ESQ., et al., Trial Court No. 2023CV 000569 Defendants-Appellees. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: June 9, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed Evan T. Byron, Byron Legal, LLC, 29525 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250, Pepper Pike, OH 44122 (For Plaintiffs-Appellants). George D. Jonson, Lindsay M. Upton, and G. Todd Hoffpauir, Montgomery Jonson, LLP, 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (For Defendant-Appellee Mary Lee Pilla, Esq.). Jason D. Winter, Winter, Trimacco, Co., LPA, 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1210, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellee Dorothea Kingsbury, Esq.). JOHN J. EKLUND, J. {¶1} Appellants, Laura Bunts, James Paul Ritter, and Victoria Bradley, appeal the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Mary Lee Pilla and Dorothea Kingsbury. Appellants’ First Amended Complaint alleged multiple counts against Appellees flowing from an underlying claim that Appellees had unduly influenced Appellants’ father, James P. Ritter (Mr. Ritter), and caused him to leave each child only a $1.00 inheritance.  {¶2} Appellants have raised two assignments of error: first, that the trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion for leave to amend their request for admissions (RFAs) after Appellants failed to respond to Appellees’ RFAs and they were deemed admitted; second, that the trial court erred in granting Appellees’ unopposed motions for summary judgment. {¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable caselaw, we find Appellants’ assignments of error are without merit. First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellants’ motion to withdraw their admissions because Appellants did not present compelling circumstances that would warrant the trial court permitting withdrawal. Second, our de novo review of the matter finds no error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. There was no genuine issue of material fact to support the conclusion that Appellees exerted undue influence over Mr. Ritter, and Appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. {¶4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Substantive and Procedural History {¶5} Appellants are the children of James P. Ritter and Bernice Ritter. Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees on May 3, 2023, and filed their First Amended Complaint on August 31, 2023. {¶6} Appellants’ First Amended Complaint alleged that Appellees, while representing Mr. Ritter, had exerted undue influence over him to cause him to leave Appellants only a $1.00 inheritance. Their complaint Asserted claims for: (1) undue influence; (2) tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance; (3) breach of fiduciary PAGE 2 OF 16 Case No. 2024-L-086 duty/breach of trust; (4) civil conspiracy; (5) conversion; (6) accounting; (7) unjust enrichment/disgorgement; (8) injunctive relief; (9) declaratory judgment; and (10) abuse of process. {¶7} The matter was set for jury trial on April 14, 2025, and the parties engaged in motion practice and discovery. Requests for Admissions: {¶8} On December 12, 2023, the trial court conducted a case management conference, and the parties agreed to a deadline of January 31, 2024, for all paper discovery and production of documents. Appellees served RFAs on December 1, 2023. Appellants failed to respond timely. Kingsbury filed a Notice of Plaintiff’s Admissions on January 3, 2024, informing the court that the RFAs were deemed admitted. Pilla’s counsel agreed to a three-week extension of time, but Appellants failed to respond. Three days after that deadline, Pilla’s counsel sent an email notification, advising that if responses were not provided, the RFAs would be deemed admitted. Appellants’ counsel responded, saying he would provide the responses that day but ultimately failed to do so. Pilla then filed a Notice of Admissions on January 22, 2024. {¶9} Both Kingsbury and Pilla also filed motions to compel discovery. These motions were pending both before and after the RFAs had been deemed admitted. Appellants sought multiple extensions to respond to the motio