¶1Plaintiff Doris Irvin,
¶2By and through her Complaint,
¶3Alleges that one Jimmie Smith,
¶4Apparently not quite a Saint,
¶5Wooed her from her calling—
¶6Missionary for her church;
¶7Promised her the aisle,
¶8Then left her in a lurch.
¶9Our story starts at a Plaza,
¶10Arlington, to be precise,
¶11Where, by chance, the within parties met,
¶12And Jimmie began his artifice.
¶13Doris disdained conversation
¶14With married and unknown men;
¶15Jimmie decried his marital status
¶16And suggested that they meet again.
¶17Doris, intrigued and enchanted,
¶18Agreed to Jimmie’s invite.
¶19The two met for dinner the next evening,
¶20And so began a most memorable night.
¶21Jimmie asked Doris to marry,
¶22As soon as his divorce was complete.
¶23Doris responded with yeses,
¶24And prepared for the marital feat.
¶25Now Jimmie, imbued with the season,
¶26Brought Doris, on Saint Valentine’s day,
¶27Candies and gifts and good wishes,
¶28And amoré, to give and to say.
¶29In June, on the seventh, he came to her home,
¶30And mentioned to Doris’ daughter dear,
¶31That he intended to marry her mother,
¶32Always to have her draw near.
¶33The couple attended that evening to dinner
¶34At a place called Old Country Buffet,
¶35Where Jimmie was introduced to daughter Bridgette
¶36And her husband — possibly over sorbet.
¶37Jimmie professed to this daughter,
¶38To her mother he soon would be wed.
¶39*20The husband, well within earshot,
¶40Assented by nodding his head.
¶41Doris began making plans for the wedding,
¶42And assembled her loving trousseau.
¶43The divorce, to be final the last day of August—
¶44A November date — not far to go.
¶45Doris met with her minister
¶46To confirm her wedding date plans,
¶47And made it known to her neighbors and friends
¶48Of her impending nuptial bans.
¶49On the thirteenth of August, at Jimmie’s request,
¶50Doris went to his east Akron dome.
¶51He informed her that the betrothal was off,
¶52As his estranged wife was soon coming home.
¶53He offered condolence in counselling,
¶54Due to Doris’ enraged state of mind,
¶55And said that he needed a wife at his home,
¶56Not a “street woman” (being rather unkind).
¶57Doris says that Jimmie related
¶58That his wife was away, not estranged,
¶59That she spent a few months in Alabama,
¶60On a vacation that had been prearranged.
¶61And that Jimmie, on August the fourteenth,
¶62Alleging threats and harassment,
¶63Reported Doris to Akron Police,
¶64Attempting to cause her embarrassment.
¶65Doris says that her former beau’s blandishment
¶66Has hurt her in numerous ways.
¶67That his intentional infliction of emotional distress
¶68Sent her into an emotional daze.
¶69She has markedly increased hypertension,
¶70And suffered the loss of some weight.
¶71Her appetite seems to be somewhere else,
¶72And her embarrassment will not abate.
¶73Doris says that Jimmie’s enticements
¶74Lured her into his board and his bed—
¶75That his promise of nuptial happiness
¶76Made her act from her heart, not her head.
¶77Doris says that this Jim should be punished
¶78For using and abusing her trust,
¶79*21And asks in her prayer as advanced to the Court,
¶80For Fifty Thousand, or whatever is just.
¶81Now Jimmie has moved for dismissal,
¶82Saying Doris hasn’t stated a claim,
¶83He believes that Doris should take nothing,
¶84With nothing besmirching his name.
¶85Jimmie plaintively asks that the Court,
¶86In reviewing the matter herein,
¶87Consider the state of the evidence,
¶88Then promptly do Doris’ case in.
¶89In order to grant a dismissal,
¶90The Court must accept as true,
¶91The factual allegations in the complaint,
¶92And all inferences made thereto.
¶93Moreover, the Court must determine,
¶94With a finding that is beyond doubt,
¶95That the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts,
¶96To flesh the Plaintiffs case out.
¶97The Court determines upon proper review
¶98That Doris’ complaint is an amatory action;
¶99That the same is barred by R.C. 2305.29,
¶100And thus denies Doris satisfaction.
¶101The Ohio Supreme Court has also determined
¶102That this action cannot be revived
¶103By the allegation of in independent tort
¶104And that nothing thereby has survived.
¶105*22And so closes this sad story,
¶106At least in the books of the Court,
¶107As the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged
¶108That which is an actionable tort.
¶109The within cause is hereby ordered dismissed
¶110With the Plaintiff bearing the cost,
¶111And with this advice in the parting,
¶112Love never won can’t be lost.
¶113It is so ordered.
¶114. See Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753, 755.
¶115. See O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 71 O.O.2d 223, 224-225, 327 N.E.2d 753, 755.
¶116. R.C. 2305.29 states:
“No person shall be liable in civil damages for any breach of affections, or criminal conversation, and no person shall be liable in civil damages for seduction of any person eighteen years of age or older who is not incompetent, as defined in section 2111.01 of the Revised Code.”
¶117. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
¶118. See Strock v. Pressnell (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 527 N.E.2d 1235. The court also held that couching such a claim as a fraud or misrepresentation does not find it subject to a claim for damages under R.C. 2305.29. Id. at 216, 527 N.E.2d at 1243.