Melody J. Stewart

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

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

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

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

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

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

In State v. Sanders, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felonious assault, discharging a firearm near prohibited premises, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and witness intimidation. The charges arose from a shooting incident in which her boyfriend fired at a teenage witness days after a 14-year-old was fatally stabbed in the house where Sanders and her boyfriend had been staying; the state alleged the shooting was intended to intimidate the witness regarding the stabbing. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, affirmed the convictions and the 15-year sentence. It held that the intimidation statute required only proof that the victim had knowledge of facts about the death and was intimidated because of it, not proof that a murder occurred or identification of the perpetrator. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions, closing arguments, counsel’s performance, or the decision not to merge the firearm-related counts, noting that concurrent sentencing on those counts left the total prison term unaffected.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State v. Bush, defendant Allante Bush appealed his guilty pleas to multiple counts of drug trafficking, weapons offenses, gang participation, endangering children, and related crimes in four consolidated cases from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, for which he received an aggregate 16-year prison term consisting of both concurrent and consecutive sentences. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court held that Bush’s pleas were knowing and voluntary because the trial judge’s pretrial remarks about counsel’s preparation and the proximity of trial did not coerce him or indicate bias against going to trial. It rejected the ineffective-assistance claims, finding counsel’s decisions strategic and non-prejudicial. The court also upheld the consecutive sentences, concluding that the record supported the required statutory findings based on Bush’s criminal history, gang affiliation, heroin and fentanyl trafficking, and possession of multiple firearms.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Sonia Thomas sued PNC Bank for disability discrimination under Ohio law after the bank fired her while she was on paid administrative leave, claiming the termination stemmed from her short-term disability leave for broken hands. The trial court directed a verdict for PNC at the close of Thomas’s case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Thomas failed to establish a prima facie case because her injuries were transitory and minor and did not substantially limit a major life activity, so neither an actual nor a perceived disability existed under R.C. 4112.01(A)(13). It further reasoned that PNC’s use of disability leave did not prove it regarded her as disabled at the time of discharge, since she was immediately switched to administrative leave upon returning to work, and no evidence showed the bank viewed her as impaired when it acted.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In State v. Taylor, a 16-year-old defendant challenged his transfer from juvenile court to adult court on charges of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and weapons offenses, all with firearm specifications, after pleading guilty in the general division to one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the bindover and conviction. The court held that the juvenile court had sufficient probable cause to believe Taylor committed the acts, based on the victim’s testimony identifying him during the incident and police tracking evidence, despite inconsistencies in the cold-stand identification. It further ruled that mandatory bindover was proper and constitutional under the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Aalim II, which vacated an earlier contrary ruling, and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

Jason E. White was charged with aggravated murder and related offenses after admitting he shot and killed his wife. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that he acted with prior calculation and design and convicted him, imposing an aggregate sentence of 23 years to life. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that White’s recorded confession—describing marital problems, his discovery of apparent infidelity, overnight discussions, and a subsequent decision to kill—provided sufficient evidence of a calculated scheme rather than momentary deliberation. The court rejected claims of error regarding the admission of unused firearms (deemed harmless), the validity of the jury waiver, and counsel’s failure to seek suppression. It modified the sentence, however, by vacating the separate sentences on allied offenses that merged into the aggravated murder count.

criminal law

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Victoria Daniels sued Northcoast Anesthesia Providers and related defendants over alleged negligence during a procedure, resulting in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs. On en banc review to resolve an intra-district conflict, the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the cumulative error doctrine applies to civil cases, allowing reversal when multiple trial errors together deprive a party of a fair trial even if no single error would suffice. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that errors including the improper admission of a prejudicial, opinion-laden medical summary had a significant cumulative prejudicial impact on the defendants' substantial rights. Separate opinions concurred in the result or dissented on specific grounds such as additional disclosure violations.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a dispute over the division and distribution of the 1935 Couse Trust after the deaths of its income beneficiaries, Jeanne Clough and Howard Schlitt. KeyBank, the trustee, divided the trust corpus into two separate investment accounts following Clough’s death and made discretionary distributions to Schlitt from one account, prompting the Clough heirs to seek a declaratory judgment and liquidation of their share upon Schlitt’s death. The probate court ruled that the trust had not been validly divided and ordered distributions and attorney fees accordingly. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a prior decision established the trust had been split into two separate trusts and that KeyBank’s post-division actions (separate accounts, statements, and communications) confirmed this division. As a result, the court ordered KeyBank to disburse the respective accounts to the Clough and Schlitt heirs and vacated the attorney fee awards.

propertyprocedure

In this case, unit owners at Marine Towers East Condominiums sued their owners’ association after it imposed a multi-million-dollar special assessment to replace the building’s HVAC system, claiming the association breached its governing documents and R.C. 5311.081 by failing to maintain a reserve fund for such major repairs. The trial court granted the association judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint. The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the association’s bylaws expressly required it to “build up and maintain a reasonable reserve” for extraordinary expenses not covered by the annual budget. Because the bylaws addressed reserves, the court ruled that R.C. 5311.081(A)—which permits unit owners to waive the statutory reserve requirement by annual majority vote—did not apply as a gap-filler, and any inconsistency between the statute and bylaws had to be resolved in favor of the bylaws without a formal amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

property

In State v. Martemus, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of multiple counts of aggravated burglary, robbery, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability for his alleged role in a home invasion during which one victim was beaten with a crowbar. On appeal, Martemus claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress the victim's sister-in-law's in-court identification and argued that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland because the sister-in-law had an opportunity to view the gunman and was cross-examined on her identification. The court further held that the trial court, as trier of fact, could reasonably credit her testimony and the DNA evidence on blood-stained earbuds recovered at the scene, notwithstanding the victim's inability to identify anyone and minor inconsistencies in the description.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Greiner, defendant Jeffrey Hart Greiner was convicted after a jury trial of murder and related offenses for shooting and killing his girlfriend in his apartment; he maintained the shooting was accidental, but had initially told police it occurred during a drive-by or that the victim shot herself. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that a letter found in Greiner’s bedroom—expressing his desire to marry the victim and referencing prior issues in the relationship—was properly authenticated and admitted because its content aligned with testimony about the couple’s relationship and it was located in an apartment where only Greiner lived. The court further concluded that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of Greiner’s initial statements and that the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the state’s circumstantial proof of motive, Greiner’s multiple false accounts to police, and his failure to present any evidence supporting an accident allowed the jury to reject the defense theory.

criminal lawprocedure

In 2001, Maurice Freeman was convicted of aggravated murder with firearm specifications and having weapons while under disability, resulting in a sentence of 23 years to life that included a three-year firearm specification served consecutive to the underlying term. Freeman later filed a pro se motion to correct a claimed clerical error and sentence, arguing that the trial court had failed to impose and journalize a separate one-year firearm specification. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion. The court held that Freeman’s claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, were moot because he had already completed the firearm specification portion of his sentence more than a decade earlier, and lacked merit because state law prohibits imposing both the one-year and three-year specifications on the same underlying count.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Robert A. Salvati, an independent contractor hired by Anthony-Lee Screen Printing to build an enclosure around a compressor and exhaust fan, injured his hand by placing it inside the operating fan blades during a later visit to inspect the completed work. He sued for negligence, alleging that Anthony-Lee had removed safety filters from the fan and failed to provide adequate lighting, and that these conditions violated the Ohio Basic Building Code and OSHA regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment to Anthony-Lee, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that, as a frequenter working on inherently dangerous construction, Salvati was owed a duty only to be warned of dangers of which he was unaware; because discovery showed he knew about the unguarded fan and dark conditions, and because Anthony-Lee did not actively control his work, no duty was breached. Violations of safety regulations did not create negligence per se under these facts.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Mike Nicholson pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and having a weapon while under disability, then filed a pro se postsentence motion to vacate his conviction alleging ineffective assistance by retained counsel, which the trial court denied without a hearing. He later filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw the guilty plea on four related grounds involving counsel’s failure to investigate or withdraw and the court’s handling of counsel substitution; the trial court also denied that motion without a hearing. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court held that the claims were barred by res judicata because they were or could have been raised in the earlier petition or on direct appeal, and that Nicholson had waived any remaining issues by proceeding with retained counsel at the plea hearing. Post-sentence plea withdrawals are permitted only to correct a manifest injustice, a high standard the court found was not met here.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hartman, defendant Mitchell Hartman appealed his convictions for forcible rape and substantially impaired rape, along with sexually violent predator specifications, arising from an incident in which he entered a woman’s hotel room at night and engaged in sexual conduct with her while she was asleep; he had been acquitted of related burglary and kidnapping charges. A divided Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The majority concluded that the cumulative prejudicial effect of two errors required reversal: the trial court’s admission of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) (testimony from Hartman’s stepdaughter about a prior similar incident) to prove motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake, and the giving of a flight-from-justice jury instruction unsupported by the evidence. Although two judges would have affirmed on sufficiency and manifest-weight grounds, the panel as a whole held that the combined errors deprived Hartman of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure