Judith Ann Lanzinger

This case involved Desean Williamson's appeal from his jury convictions in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of murder and one count of felonious assault arising from a 2021 shooting in the Kenmore area. Williamson raised eight assignments of error, including claims of speedy trial violations, insufficient evidence, manifest weight issues, evidentiary errors, and improper jury instructions. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Williamson failed to develop any supporting arguments in his brief as required by App.R. 16(A)(7) and that the appellate record was incomplete due to missing transcript pages, which limited review of the evidence and claims. The court declined to construct arguments on his behalf or address undeveloped issues and found no basis to reverse under plain error review for the jury instruction claim.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the termination of parental rights of the biological mother of C.A., a child born in 2020, following multiple removals from the home by Summit County Children Services Board due to substance abuse, domestic violence, and related incidents. The juvenile court initially returned the child to the mother's legal custody under protective supervision but later granted permanent custody to the agency after the mother failed to maintain sobriety, attend required counseling, and meet other case plan objectives, despite periods of compliance and additional time granted. The mother appealed, seeking reversal or an extension of temporary custody, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding it was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence and that the mother had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that reunification was likely within a further extension period under R.C. 2151.415(D).

family law

In N. Ridgeville v. Standen, the City of North Ridgeville sought to appropriate 0.788 acres of the Standens' 2.336-acre investment property for construction of a roundabout at a major intersection, filing a petition in probate court after negotiations failed and taking immediate possession under R.C. 163.06. A jury trial determined compensation for the taken land and damages to the remaining 1.548 acres, with the parties' appraisers agreeing on a pre-take value of $300,000 per acre but disagreeing on residue damages due to disputed access points; the jury awarded $236,400 for the take plus $300,000 in damages to the residue. The City appealed, challenging the verdict as excessive and outside the range of expert opinions, the denial of its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, and related evidentiary and instructional issues. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that the verdict was supported by competent, credible evidence including testimony on access limitations and was not contrary to law or the result of passion or prejudice.

propertyprocedure

In Pearson v. Pearson, the case involved a divorced couple where the wife filed a motion to increase the husband's $500 monthly spousal support obligation after their 2023 divorce decree, which allowed modification starting November 2023 based on retirement or other changes in circumstances. The magistrate denied the motion after a hearing, and the trial court adopted that decision. The husband appealed, arguing that the court should have reduced or terminated support due to changed circumstances and that due process did not bar such consideration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the only motion before the court was the wife's request for an increase, the husband had not filed any counter-motion or raised reduction at the hearing, and due process required limiting the ruling to the issues properly presented.

family lawprocedure

Restoration Resources, Inc. sued Jennifer Williams in Stow Municipal Court small claims division for breach of contract, alleging she owed $3,090 on services provided and her account was past due. Williams moved to transfer the case to the regular docket and to dismiss based on a contractual one-year limitation period, but the magistrate denied the dismissal motion, held a trial, and entered judgment for Restoration Resources in the amount of $4,585 including fees. The trial court overruled Williams' objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's findings or in rejecting the timeliness challenge, as the record supported that Restoration Resources learned of the cause of action within the contractual period.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a contract dispute between home buyers Shane Siniscalchi and Eric Velazquez and several Hovnanian entities over a purchase agreement; the trial court compelled arbitration, the arbitrator awarded the buyers damages on one breach-of-contract claim but denied other relief, and the trial court dismissed the action. The buyers later moved to vacate or modify the award, but the trial court denied the motion because it relied solely on the obsolete “manifest disregard of the law” standard and stated no statutory ground under Ohio or federal arbitration law. The defendants then sought sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 for frivolous conduct; after a hearing, the trial court awarded attorney fees and expenses against the buyers and their counsel. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion lacked any good-faith basis in existing law or a reasonable argument for changing it.

procedure

In this case, the mother of a newborn child appealed a juvenile court judgment that placed the child in the legal custody of the child's maternal aunt and uncle rather than returning the child to the mother or extending temporary custody. The child had been removed at birth after testing positive for drugs, and the court had adjudicated her as abused, neglected, and dependent based on the mother's history of substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, domestic violence, and prior loss of custody of four other children. The trial court found that the mother had only partially complied with the case plan by completing medically assisted drug treatment but had not engaged in required counseling, assessments, or secured stable housing and income, and had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of unfitness arising from her prior involuntary termination of parental rights. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that legal custody with the relatives was in the child's best interest.

family law

The case concerned Hilliard Lending's complaint for breach of a cognovit promissory note and guaranty against H-9 and HP, which resulted in a confessed judgment for principal of $1.7 million plus substantial interest. After the trial court entered judgment without specifying attorney fees and later denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration under Civ.R. 54(B) or relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) based on claimed meritorious defenses, it issued a final judgment following waiver of fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, reasoning that a motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle following judgment and that Civ.R. 60(B) relief was unavailable given the procedural posture and nature of cognovit judgments.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose after a fire destroyed a residence on property owned by defendant Burks, where plaintiff Willey lived in a separate suite; Willey arrived late, an altercation ensued with family members and responders, leading to her arrest on charges of misconduct at an emergency, making false alarms, and disorderly conduct that were later dismissed. Willey sued the township, its police and fire departments, individual officers and firefighters, and several private individuals, asserting claims including malicious prosecution, false arrest, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defamation, assault, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to the governmental defendants and dismissed the defamation and some emotional distress claims against certain private defendants. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed those rulings in full. The court reasoned that Willey failed to develop or demonstrate error in the trial court's dismissal of certain claims and that the record supported summary judgment on the remaining causes of action.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a mother appealing the Summit County Juvenile Court's adjudication of her child L.O.-D. as dependent and the grant of temporary custody to Summit County Children Services Board. The court affirmed the lower court's decision after reviewing evidence of the mother's mental health issues, erratic behaviors leading to housing instability, failure to address the child's trauma and school attendance, and her recent drug use. The core reasoning was that the evidence supported the dependency finding and that temporary custody was in the child's best interest due to the unsuitable home environment and lack of engagement with services.

family law

This case involved the Summit County Children Services Board filing complaints alleging that two minor children were dependent due to unstable housing with their mother and unsafe conditions, including clutter, dirt, and pest infestation, in their maternal grandmother's apartment. The trial court adjudicated the children dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C) and placed them in the agency's temporary custody, relying on testimony from the landlord and an intake caseworker about the apartment's condition. The Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication and remanded the matter, holding that the trial court's findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the witnesses lacked direct, timely observations of the home and the record did not sufficiently establish ongoing conditions posing a threat to the children. The court also found that the magistrate failed to provide required detailed factual findings under R.C. 2151.28(L).

family lawprocedure

Gevonte Hunter was convicted in 2012 of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and murder with firearm specifications based on circumstantial evidence from a 2011 shooting outside a carryout business. After prior unsuccessful motions for a new trial, Hunter filed a fourth motion supported by affidavits from a purported eyewitness claiming he was not the shooter, which the trial court denied. Hunter appealed, arguing judicial bias in the trial court's credibility assessment of the new evidence. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court's decision relied on the record and applicable legal standards without demonstrating bias or prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Bareon Coleman, who was charged with two counts of burglary after allegedly breaking into a condominium and stealing merchandise and personal items on two consecutive days in July 2024. Coleman moved to suppress statements he made to police during an interview at the county jail, arguing violations related to his right to counsel since he had been indicted and retained an attorney, but the trial court denied the motion after finding he had been advised of and waived his Miranda rights. Following a jury trial where evidence included security footage, witness testimony, and cell phone data, Coleman was convicted, and he appealed both the suppression ruling and the weight of the evidence supporting the convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that no constitutional violation occurred in the interview and that the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over spousal support following the 2013 divorce of Patricia and Richard Organ after a 28-year marriage, under a decree that awarded Patricia indefinite monthly support plus percentages of bonuses and stock income, while reserving court jurisdiction to terminate only upon death or remarriage and to modify upon a substantial change in circumstances. Patricia moved to increase support in 2023, and Richard moved to terminate or reduce it; the trial court adopted a magistrate's decision terminating support based on an appropriate duration of ten to twelve years and a substantial change including Richard reaching retirement age. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court lacked authority to terminate because the decree's language expressly limited termination to the stated conditions and distinguished that from modification authority. The court held that neither duration nor a change in circumstances permitted termination absent an express reservation for it.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Kaelyn Smith appealed her felony murder conviction and sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, arguing that the trial court failed to inform her of her rights and responsibilities as a presumed violent offender under Sierah’s Law (R.C. 2903.41 et seq.) before sentencing. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the statute requires the trial court to inform a violent offender of certain rights and responsibilities and to have the offender read and sign a form before sentencing, but the record here contained no such executed form despite defense counsel’s waiver of a reading. Although no objection was raised below, this omission constituted plain error because it rendered the sentence contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Summit County Children Services Board filing complaints alleging that two minor children were abused, neglected, and dependent due to the father's excessive physical discipline, verbal mistreatment, and possible untreated mental health or substance issues, with the mother having had no contact with the children for years. The juvenile court adjudicated the children as abused and dependent, placed them in temporary agency custody, and later terminated the father's parental rights to one child while granting legal custody of the other to non-relatives, after both parents failed to comply with case plan requirements such as assessments, treatment, drug screens, visitation, and demonstrating stability. The parents appealed, raising claims including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present evidence, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's orders, concluding that the evidence supported the children's best interests and that the parents had not shown any prejudice from counsel's actions.

family law

In State v. Robinson, defendant Jacky Robinson, Jr. appealed the trial court's denial of his fourth successive motion to withdraw his 2005 guilty plea to aggravated murder and related charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court held that Robinson's claims of manifest injustice, including alleged breach of plea agreement, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper sentencing, were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in his direct appeal or earlier motions to withdraw his plea. The opinion noted that res judicata promotes finality and prevents endless relitigation of issues already subject to prior opportunities for review.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dean v. Pekin Insurance Co., plaintiff Randy Dean sued his insurer for underinsured motorist benefits under an auto policy, but the parties' counsel later exchanged emails agreeing to settle the case for $185,000 in exchange for dismissal with prejudice and a release. When Dean refused to sign the settlement documents, Pekin moved to enforce the agreement, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing before granting the motion and ordering payment. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported findings of a meeting of the minds, that Dean's former counsel had authority to settle for any amount over $175,000, and that Dean failed to prove incapacity or duress. The court applied standard contract principles governing settlement agreements and reviewed the trial court's factual findings for sufficient supporting evidence.

procedure

This case involves a dispute between adjacent landowners in Lorain County, Ohio, where Zola Properties and its tenants sued Reed Salvage Corp. for trespass after Reed and its customers continued using a dirt road on the Zola property for access to the Reed property following a 2017 parcel split, despite no recorded easement. Reed Salvage asserted an implied easement by prior use, and the trial court granted it partial summary judgment on the trespass claim. The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the existence and enforceability of any implied easement, including witness testimony and the history of the properties' use, which precluded summary judgment under Civ.R. 56. The court remanded for further proceedings without resolving the underlying claims.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Elhadj Souare filed a pro se complaint against the Summit County Sheriff asserting a vague claim of discrimination and seeking $150 million in damages. After the sheriff did not respond, Souare moved for default judgment, but a magistrate denied the motion following a hearing and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a valid claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision. On appeal, Souare argued improper service of the magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 53 and the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record showed proper service by mail in compliance with Civ.R. 5 and that the complaint was too vague to support relief. The court overruled both assignments of error and upheld the dismissal.

procedurecivil rights