In re Estate of Demsey
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-12-20
In this case, Kenneth Demsey appealed a probate court ruling that barred his claim for $280,000 in caregiver services against his mother Louise Demsey’s estate. The claim had previously been filed in the general division of the common pleas court, where it was dismissed with prejudice after Demsey failed to comply with a discovery order; the estate’s counterclaims were later dismissed without prejudice, and no further appeal was taken. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under Civ.R. 41(B)(3) a dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits and therefore has res judicata effect, preventing relitigation of the same claim in probate court. The court rejected Demsey’s argument that the dismissal was merely procedural and not on the merits.
procedurepropertyfamily law
Morton v. Murray
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-12-20 · cited 4×
J. Alex Morton sued Cuyahoga County Treasurer W. Christopher Murray and Lakeview Holding, L.L.C., claiming unjust enrichment after his legal work before the board of revision reduced real estate taxes on property owned by Nancy and Thomas Ross; Morton sought his attorney fees from the resulting tax savings, even though the Rosses had been delinquent and the treasurer had sold a tax lien on the property to Lakeview. The trial court granted summary judgment to the treasurer and, after a trial, entered judgment for Lakeview on the unjust enrichment claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a county cannot be liable for unjust enrichment and that Morton had no right to any tax overpayment because he had not paid the taxes. The court further held that Morton conferred no benefit on Lakeview and failed to prove he had any attorney-client relationship with the Rosses that would support an equitable claim for fees from the tax reduction.
taxespropertytorts & liabilityprocedure
State v. Hardman
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-12-17
In State v. Hardman, defendant Deafred C. Hardman filed an application under App.R. 26(B) to reopen his direct appeal after the Eighth District had affirmed his convictions for compelling prostitution and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise three issues: the state's alleged discovery violation involving dental records, improper authentication of a Backpage.com advertisement exhibit, and judicial bias by the trial court. The court denied the application, holding that the discovery claim was barred by res judicata because it had already been litigated, that the authentication claim did not establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, and that the record contained no evidence of judicial bias or ill will toward Hardman.
criminal lawprocedure
ALSOL, Inc. v. Barbolovici
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-12-13
In ALSOL, Inc. v. Barbolovici, plaintiff ALSOL sued defendant Fabian Barbolovici in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to quiet title to real property. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice after ALSOL failed to file a required preliminary judicial report, then denied Barbolovici’s motion for sanctions under Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Barbolovici appealed, arguing the underlying action was frivolous. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of sanctions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because ALSOL’s claims arose from a lease with a prior owner and related eviction proceedings, which the court could reasonably view as a legitimate business dispute rather than frivolous conduct.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
State v. Hernandez
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-12-13 · cited 10×
In State v. Hernandez, a jury convicted the defendant of multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and gross sexual imposition against two young siblings (under age 13) who were his son's stepchildren and lived in his home; the victims testified to specific acts of sexual abuse, including vaginal and digital rape of the girl and mutual genital touching involving the boy. Hernandez appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted uncharged "other acts" evidence, that a police officer improperly bolstered the boy's testimony, that evidence was insufficient to prove sexual gratification on one count, and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Hernandez forfeited his Evid.R. 404(B) challenge by making only a general relevancy objection at trial and failing to request a limiting instruction, that the remaining claims lacked merit, and that the victims' testimony provided sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer the required purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
criminal lawprocedure
Cleveland v. Ruiz
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-11-15 · cited 1×
The case involved Yachira Ruiz’s convictions in Cleveland Municipal Court for assault and aggravated menacing arising from a physical altercation with a relative, during which Ruiz and others stopped the victim’s car and struck her. Ruiz appealed, arguing that the aggravated menacing conviction lacked sufficient evidence and that the trial court improperly imposed court costs without considering her ability to pay. The Court of Appeals reversed the aggravated menacing conviction, holding that the city presented no evidence of the victim’s subjective belief that Ruiz would cause her serious physical harm, as required by the ordinance, and remanded the case to vacate that conviction. It affirmed the imposition of court costs, ruling that such costs are mandatory under R.C. 2947.23 regardless of ability to pay and that the trial court retains ongoing authority to address them.
criminal lawprocedure