BMO Bank N.A. v. Wilson

[Cite as BMO Bank N.A. v. Wilson, 2026-Ohio-3494.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY BMO BANK N.A., : CASE NO. CA2025-12-098 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 9/8/2026 MATTHEW T. WILSON aka WILSON : MATTHEW TODD, : Appellant. : CIVIL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2025 CVH 00034 Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, and Nicholas K. Rohner, for appellee. Matthew T. Wilson aka Wilson Matthew Todd, pro se. ____________ OPINION PIPER, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Matthew T. Wilson, aka Wilson Matthew Todd ("Wilson"), appeals pro se from the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas' denial of his motion  Clermont CA2025-12-098 to dismiss and the granting the motion for summary judgment and order for possession of property filed by appellee, BMO Bank N.A. ("BMO Bank"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Factual and Procedural History {¶ 2} On April 26, 2022, Wilson executed a loan agreement titled "Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement" with Dixie Marine to finance his purchase of a boat and trailer. The agreement financed $25,604.00 at a 7.99% annual interest rate to be repaid by Wilson over 180 payments. Wilson, however, made only 17 of those payments. When Wilson stopped paying, the agreement was declared in default, and the balance was accelerated and became due. To date, the remaining balance due is the principal sum of $24,336.20, plus accrued interest of $750.38, and a late charge of $72.80. {¶ 3} On January 7, 2025, BMO Bank filed a complaint against Wilson requesting judgment to recover the remaining balance. BMO Bank also sought possession of the boat and trailer. On February 11, 2025, Wilson filed an answer denying all allegations against him, including the existence of the loan agreement itself. In the months that followed, Wilson filed four motions to dismiss, which were subsequently denied. His last motion to dismiss was filed on September 22, 2025. {¶ 4} On September 29, 2025, BMO Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. Following review, the trial court denied Wilson's motions to dismiss, and granted BMO Bank's motion for summary judgment, ordering that possession of the boat and trailer be delivered to BMO Bank. Wilson appealed, raising four assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion, we will address Wilson's four assigned errors together. Wilson's Appeal and Four Assignments of Error {¶ 5} Within his four assignments of error, Wilson concludes that the trial court -2-  Clermont CA2025-12-098 violated his due process rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by holding off-the-record proceedings, thereby depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Wilson also attempts to argue that the trial court erred by failing to timely rule on his motions to dismiss, by disregarding his evidence, and by violating his right to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.1 Wilson further suggests that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear BMO Bank's claim brought against him.2 {¶ 6} Rather than providing an argument as to why or how the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, Wilson offers only a bare assertion that BMO Bank lacked standing to bring the claim against him. Wilson, in fact, offers no argument in support of any of his four assignments of error, nor does he present any reasons in support of the errors. Despite the clear mandate provided by App.R. 16(A)(7), and to our dismay, Wilson never cites to the record, let alone provide any legal authority in his opening brief. Such failures are fatal to Wilson's appeal. {¶ 7} What is more, Wilson neglects to provide any argument in his opening brief as to how BMO Bank lacked standing to enforce its claim. Only in his reply brief, for the first time, does Wilson suggest in a conclusory fashion that BMO Bank lacked standing because the assignment of his loan agreement and the merger of BMO Bank, including 1. We observe that Wilson never referenced what evidence he submitted that the trial court disregarded or identifies what off-the-record proceedings occurred. Additionally, the record is clear that the trial court denied Wilson's first motion to dismiss on June 24, 2025, and his subsequent motions to dismiss in its entry dated December 3, 2025, and titled, "Decision and Entry Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment." 2. We note that Wilson's suggestion is only in the stated assignment of error and never referenced in the body of his argument in support of the assignment of error, nor is it referenced in his reply brief. Further, we find nothing in the record to suggest the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas did not have subject- matter jurisdiction over the civil suit. -3-  Clermont CA2025-12-098 its name change, were not established.3 Despite Wilson's unsupported conclusions, BMO Bank's summary judgment affidavits clearly establish that the loan agreement, upon execution, was assigned to the Bank of the West. Then, in February of 2023, Bank of the West merged with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. Shortly thereafter, on September 2, 2023, BMO Harris changed its name to BMO Bank N.A., the named appellee in this case. Thus, BMO Bank's summary judgment affidavits met its burden to present evidence establishing its standing to enforce its claim. {¶ 8} "An appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal and substantiating his or her arguments in support thereof." Simpson v. Moreland, 2024-Ohio-1728, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). To that end, App.R. 16(A)(7) states an appellant's brief must include "[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies." Here, Wilson blatantly fails to meet those requirements. {¶ 9} If a party fails to satisfy these requirements, App.R. 12(A)(2) provides that an appellate court "may disregard an assignment of error." Lazor v. Souders, 2024-Ohio- 774, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). This court has routinely exercised such authority when an appellant offers only conclusory statements unsupported by an essential legal analysis. See Shamrock Restoration, LLC v. Muncy, 2024-Ohio-1002, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.); Simpson at ¶ 17. {¶ 10} The role of the appellate courts is to serve as neutral adjudicators. State v. Bullock, 2026-Ohio-693, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). It is not the role of an appellate court to develop 3. While we observe the bare mention of statutes and issue of merger raised for the first time in Wilson's reply brief, we note it is a well-established principle that a reply brief "may not be used by an appellant to raise new assignments of error, or new issues for review." (Emphasis in original.) Baker v. Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership, 2009-Ohio-4681, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.), citing App.R. 16(C); Loc.R. 11(A)(3). -4-  Clermont CA2025-12-098 or "root out" an argument that could support an assigned error, even if one exists. Lebanon v. Ballinger, 2015-Ohio-3522, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.). Nor is it the obligation of an appellate court to search the record for evidence supporting the appellant's argument regarding the alleged error. Rolph v. Rolph, 2026-Ohio-3005, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.). {¶ 11} Upon review of the record, BMO Bank provides uncontradicted evidence that Wilson signed the agreement with Dixie Marine and that Dixie Marine's interest passed to BMO Bank. Despite this uncontradicted evidence, Wilson continues to deny liability. He does so, however, by offering nothing more than conclusory arguments and assertions in support of each of his four assignments of error. As noted above, such briefing is insufficient to sustain Wilson's appeal. {¶ 12} For example, in his second assigned error, Wilson's supporting argument, in its entirety, states that "[s]tanding and the right to enforce are jurisdictional prerequisites. Appellee failed to demonstrate enforcement rights under Civ.R. 56." Similarly, with respect to his fourth assigned error, Wilson simply states that "Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, requires reasonable accommodations in court proceedings. The trial court proceeded without accommodation, resulting in prejudice." These statements are followed by no factual or legal argument, and Wilson makes no reference as to how the trial court may have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, what accommodations were reasonable, or why such accommodations might be necessary. Wilson identifies no particular prejudice accompanying his conclusions. As previously discussed, BMO Bank clearly established its standing to enforce its claim, which remained unrebutted by Wilson with evidentiary material. In other words, Wilson failed to meet his reciprocal burden in the summary judgment proceedings below. {¶ 13} Although Wilson is proceeding pro se, a pro se appellant is "expected, as attorneys are, to abide by the relevant rules of procedure." Reyes v. Kiwewa, 2024-Ohio- -5-  Clermont CA2025-12-098 4524, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.), quoting Fontain v. H&R Cincy Properties, LLC, 2022-Ohio-1000, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). That is, a pro se appellant is held to the same obligations and standards outlined in the appellate rules that apply to all litigants. Shamrock Restoration, 2024-Ohio- 1002, at ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). This is why, even for an appellant who is proceeding pro se, this court does not construct arguments on an appellant's behalf. See Streaker v. Streaker, 2019-Ohio-832, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.) (holding "[a]n appellate court will neither construct assignments of error nor create arguments on behalf of an appellant because it is not the duty of an Ohio appellate court to raise arguments for the parties."). Therefore, we decline to do so herein. Conclusion {¶ 14} For the reasons outlined above, we hold that the record supports no error on the part of the trial court and overrule Wilson's four assignments of error. Wilson's appeal is meritless. The same is hereby denied. {¶ 15} Judgment affirmed. M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur. -6-  Clermont CA2025-12-098 JUDGMENT ENTRY The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. /s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge /s/ Mike Powell, Judge /s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge -7-