10/21/2021


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
WebCite
R. Gibson Properties, L.L.C. v. Genmoncha, L.L.C. 109536Breach of settlement agreement; motion to enforce settlement agreement; vacate dismissal; Civ.R. 60(B); jurisdiction retained by court over settlement. The trial court acted within its properly retained jurisdiction in determining that the settlement agreement was unenforceable and refusing to vacate the dismissal. Returning the parties to their original positions simply because the settlement agreement could not be enforced was not warranted, particularly where the party seeking reinstatement of the claims was the party who breached the agreement. Celebrezze 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3732
In re N.J.K. 110056Motion to dismiss; motion to modify child support order; administrative support order; jurisdiction; venue; administrative child support order, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-10-03; motion to adopt. Our standard of review on a motion to dismiss is de novo. “Jurisdiction” is defined as a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case. The term encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person. It is a “condition precedent to the court’s ability to hear the case. If a court acts without jurisdiction, then any proclamation by that court is void.” Jurisdiction and venue are distinct legal concepts. Venue is a “procedural matter,” and it refers not to the power to hear a case but to the geographic location where a given case should be heard. In this matter, Mother argues that Father’s “Application to Determine Custody,” filed in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court on August 1, 2011, invoked that court’s jurisdiction to modify the Medina County administrative child support order. However, because the child support order, at issue, is an administrative child support order, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-10-03, Subsection (E)(2)(a), provides that the issuing county CSEA retains administrative responsibility even when, as in this instance, the party or applicant for services moves to another county. Because the issuing county CSEA (Medina) retains administrative responsibility for the child support order, from issuance through post termination, then the juvenile court (Cuyahoga) would have to first adopt the order to obtain jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. However, Mother failed to request that the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court adopt the Medina County administrative child support order. As such, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court was without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case and, consequently, did not err when it granted the motion to dismiss.Groves 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3733
Montefiore Home v. Fields 110183Fraudulent transfer; R.C. 1337.092(B); answer; Civ.R. 8; Civ.R. 8(F); liberally; R.C. 1336.04; R.C. 1336.05; R.C. 1336.01(L); R.C. 1336.06(A)(1)(b); R.C. 1336.02; R.C. 1336.08(A); R.C. 1336.08(B)(1); manifest weight; fraudulent intent; facts and circumstances; burden; inferences; proof, bona fides, rebut; attorney in fact; power of attorney. Affirmed judgment in favor of defendant-appellee on claims for promissory estoppel, fraudulent transfer, and a statutory claim under R.C. 1337.092(B). Defendant-appellee’s answer was liberally construed to comply with Civ.R. 8 and constituted a denial to the averments underlying the claims for relief. The judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The ultimate burden of proof in a fraud case rests on the party asserting fraud; the trial court did not impose any improper burden and commented upon the proof and testimony demonstrating the bona fides of the withdrawals and transfers and rebutting any inference of a fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff-appellant failed to ultimately prove its claim of fraudulent transfer under either R.C. 1336.04 and 1336.05 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, or to prove its claim under R.C. 1337.092(B).S. Gallagher 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3734
State v. Weeks 110195; 110196Community control; termination of community control; R.C. 2929.15; R.C. 309.08(A); notice; abuse of discretion. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating appellee’s community control sanctions sua sponte without providing appellant with notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to termination.Celebrezze 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3735
Bank of New York Mellon v. Floyd 110248Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; mortgage; foreclosure; standing; magistrate’s decision; Civ.R. 12(B)(6)/motion to dismiss; Evid.R. 801(C) and Evid.R. 802/hearsay; Evid.R 803(6)/exception to hearsay; Evid.R. 901/authentication; unclean hands; judicial estoppel; FDCPA; intentional infliction of emotional distress; slander of title; quiet title; punitive damages; declaratory judgment. Appellants’ claim of a lack of standing fails where appellants referred to two prior cases that were dismissed without prejudice. Appellants were placed back in the position they held prior to the current foreclosure action now on appeal. Appellee corrected the note by affixing an allonge to the note with the proper specialty indorsement and subsequently filed an amended complaint to affect standing. Additionally, appellee was in possession of the mortgage assignment and note at the time the complaint was filed. Appellee’s agent provided sufficient authentication of possession and knowledge of the note, mortgage, and assignment of mortgage. The trial court’s acceptance of appellee’s agent’s affidavit was proper.Mays 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3736
State v. Christian 110310Manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; consecutive sentences; self-defense. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm while under a disability. Appellant could not show any prejudice from the alleged deficiencies of trial counsel. Appellant stated he had possession of a firearm and the video produced by the state showed him bringing the weapon to the scene of the shooting. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, appellant could not show that the trial court erred in determining that having weapons under a disability was his most serious offense and so did not show that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.E.A. Gallagher 10/21/2021 2021-Ohio-3737