Judith L. French

The case involved parents suing a licensed child care center and its owners and staff after their 10-month-old son suffered an acute subdural hematoma requiring emergency brain surgery while in the Explorers classroom. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the negligence claims, and the appellate court affirmed that judgment. Plaintiffs could not produce evidence linking the injury to any act or omission by the center during the child's attendance, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the evidence showed the precipitating event was equally likely to have occurred before the child arrived at the facility.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the State appealing a trial court's decision to sentence Omar Murphy to community control instead of prison for failing to notify the sheriff of an address change, a violation of R.C. 2950.05. Murphy had been convicted of rape in 2002 and was required to register as a sex offender. The court decided to affirm the community control sentence, reasoning that under stare decisis and prior holdings like State v. Milby, the enhanced mandatory three-year prison penalties from the 2007 Adam Walsh Act amendments do not apply to individuals classified as sex offenders before the law's effective date in 2008.

criminal law

In this case, American Tax Funding, LLC purchased tax certificates creating a first lien on Clara D. Whitlow's property for delinquent taxes and filed a foreclosure action seeking sale of the property and satisfaction of the amounts due. After the trial court granted summary judgment and an order of foreclosure, the property failed to sell at auction, leading ATF to obtain an order forfeiting the property to its assignee. Whitlow appealed, challenging the summary judgment, standing, due process, consideration of her answer, and denial of a stay on a writ of restitution. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that many issues had been litigated or decided in a prior appeal, that ATF had properly documented its claims, and that the trial court committed no reversible error in its procedures or rulings.

taxespropertyprocedure

In State v. Lott, the State of Ohio appealed a trial court's imposition of an 18-month prison sentence on defendant Lamarc Antonio Lott for his second conviction of failing to notify the sheriff of an address change under R.C. 2950.05, a third-degree felony. Lott had been convicted of rape in 2004 and was subject to sex-offender registration requirements; the State argued that a 2007 statutory amendment required a mandatory three-year term. The Court of Appeals held that the enhanced penalties under the Adam Walsh Act amendments could not be applied to offenders who were classified before the 2008 effective date of the changes, following its prior decision in State v. Milby and the doctrine of stare decisis. The court therefore affirmed the 18-month sentence.

criminal law

This case arose from a foreclosure action in which Fifth Third Mortgage Company sought to foreclose on John Rankin's real property after he defaulted on a mortgage; the trial court granted summary judgment and ordered a sheriff's sale, which Rankin (the high bidder) challenged on appeal from the confirmation entry. Rankin argued that the sale should not have been confirmed because Fifth Third failed to strictly comply with the statutory notice and filing requirements under R.C. 2329.26(A)(1) and R.C. 2329.27(B)(1), allegedly violating due process. The court of appeals denied Fifth Third's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and affirmed the trial court's confirmation of the sale. It held that any noncompliance with the notice-filing provision did not prejudice Rankin, who had actual notice of the sale date, time, and place and participated as the successful bidder, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the sale.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Fifth Third Mortgage Company against John Rankin in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas. After obtaining a judgment and decree of foreclosure, the property was sold at a sheriff's sale where Rankin was the successful bidder but failed to pay the balance due within thirty days of confirmation. While an appeal of the confirmation order was pending, the trial court issued an order finding Rankin in contempt, vacating the sale and confirmation entry, and forfeiting his deposit. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order during the pendency of the appeal, rendering it void, and therefore dismissed the appeal while vacating the order.

propertyprocedure