COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59662 W. MICHAEL LYNES : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : WILLIAM P. LYNES : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLEE : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 12, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. 176866 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: ROBERT OTTO CARSON 653 BROADWAY AVE., SUITE 200 BEDFORD, OH 44146 For Defendant-Appellee: JAMES P. REDDY, JR. LAW OFFICES OF JOYCE BARRETT 800 STANDARD BUILDING CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 -2- SPELLACY, J.: Plaintiff-appellant W. Michael Lynes ("appellant") appeals from the trial court's decision to grant defendant-appellee William Lynes's ("appellee") motion to dismiss. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows: On September 28, 1989, appellant filed a complaint against appellee, his father, alleging appellee was liable for services appellant had provided to Virginia Lynes, appellant's mother and appellee's ex-wife. Appellant based his complaint on two theories: a husband's duty to provide necessities to his wife pursuant to R.C. 3103.03 and breach of contract. Appellee responded by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B), which the trial court granted. Appellant timely appealed and raises the following assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE[:] 1. DEFENDANT IS LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR NECESSARIES PROVIDED; AND 2. THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION, THE WIFE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY AND THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY. Appellant's assignment of error has merit. Appellee made three arguments in support of his motion to dismiss. We address these in turn. First, appellee argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, contending that appellant should have filed -3- his complaint in the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction, Section 4(B), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2305.01, while the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas is restricted to cases involving divorce, dissolution, legal separation, and annulment. R.C. 2301.03. Consequently, the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over both of appellant's claims since neither involve domestic relations matters. Second, appellee argued that appellant's complaint should be dismissed because appellant did not join Virginia Lynes as a necessary party. The nonjoinder of a necessary party, however, is not a ground for dismissal. Civ. R. 21. In addition, Virginia Lynes is not a necessary party. Finally, appellee argued that the doctrine of res judicata applied because the claims had already been resolved in the divorce action between appellee and Virginia Lynes. The affirmative defense of res judicata, however, may not be made by a Civ. R. 12(B) motion to dismiss. State, ex rel. Freeman v. Morris (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 107, 109. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is well taken. Judgment reversed and remanded. -4- This cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Journal Entry and Opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant(s) recover of said appellee(s) his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. ANN MCMANAMON, P.J., AND HARPER, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .