KIM L. AN#^^^^ON1, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. APPELLANT, On Direct A^a^eal from the vs.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "KIM L. AN#^^^^ON1, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. APPELLANT, On Direct A^a^eal from the vs."

Transcription

1 IN THE SOPPEME COURT OF OHIO ^ ^ 14j ± d ^V KIM L. AN#^^^^ON1, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. APPELLANT, On Direct A^a^eal from the vs. Franklin Coc^nty Court of Ap^ea1sp Tenth A^^eI3.ate.^Ystrict PREFERRED TITLE & GUARANTY AGENCY, INC. et al., APPEALS CASE NO. 13AP-385) APPEL1`EES. TRIAL CASE NO. 11 CVH MEMORANI?UM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIOU OF APPELLANT KIM ^.^.`. ANDERSON KIM L. ANDERSON CCI #Ap^ P. l,t. BOX 5500 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO APPELLANT, PRO SE f.isf.4".r K 0r ik:,%4.i>,t 1 ' w' s> ;I Rf^' " %. ^ %^':f ys ie^1 "; s" ;^ ^ w 3'";.;s '" E^fi^ i,. #S^! L^6f, ` f c;.," DEBRA J. D'SANTO DFSANTQ & MCNICHOLS 8 7 SOUTH HIGH STREET COLUMBUS, OHIO MICHAEL J. SIKORA, III SIKORA LAW LU^ 88 W. MAIN STREET COLUMBUS, OHIO COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, PREFERRED TITTE 9 GtBARNTY AGENCY, INC. ^ FRANK FARKAS flio 1NSFL FOR APPEL LEE, STEWART TITLE G11ARMATY COMPANY

2 TABLE OF CqNTENT^ ^X^I AV^1ATIi)N OF '.: HY T11^S C'ASE T`2 A CASE OF P#1`f ^^ " r;. ty ^T ^rv,'^^' '^^_ ^^'^^TE^^'E`'1 ^r1^^i^ ^.i't^oi ^S ^^'^A S^^Fry"T^,^^tTI^.^^ i^t 1.1 T^`^.1A`- ^^ m^ti^^`'^ 4 b ^1 ^ A1. F^1j`^ 1f^ {{^ OF ^^ ^5 }^ CASE ^^ L ('^f {1 '9 FAC T S {.^. 6 b t O, O i A=^GUME'N'T 1'19 SU^'PORT ^^ ^ROPOSIT IOTIS 0E" LAW'. a e a. 9.. b a 9 tl i tl Y. 6. O Proyosition Af Law Nc. 1: The Franklin County Court of Appeals erred byfo.il-ang toconsidcr or notice Plain Errors Porsuaot to Rtile 520), orgued in both Appellant's Merit and Reply Briofs; which the Court of Appeals erroneously held fell outside of the parameters of his ossignments of error. Specifically, of note, Appellant argaaed that it was error for the trial court to grant Summary Judgment to Appoll.ccs witl^out, first, ordering the production of outstc^t^dlng Discovery. More specifically, the denial, and Decision affirming by Court of AppoQlss of 40 seoarate motions, many pertalnirtg to compelling Discovery, constituted Plain Error, in and of itself, and was properly within the scope review on appeal. Prooosxfizoo of $r'aw No. II: The Ohio State Courts erred and abused their discretion by denying, and affirming the denial, of Appellant's Motion for Summary Jud moat; when there were no genuine issues of material f ct and App^ylo?t was entitled ^:tter of ^c^w. Spec^ to $ur^mtr.^^ Judgment q.s a ^r.co Ty, the issue of li^^^i ^y was basea on the wrongful ooats of the Appollees incident to three Real Estate transactions and the parc^mount act was admitted to by one Appelloo and acknowledged by o1l others. More spccificolly, it was error for the courts to ignore or place no si ^aiflcc^r^co on the undisputed fact that Rebecca Barley an employee o^ Preferred Title; admitted that she listed the A r^otic^nt sb^aslr^ess Debt Invoices ^rs'omely as Second Mortgages on t^o HUD-1 Settlement Statements. Pro osition cf 9now No. III: The Ohio State Courts erred and abused their dlscret1on-'-w drantxng, and affirming the grant, of Appellees' Preferred Title & Guaranty Agency, Inc. and Frank ForkOs' Motion for Summary Judgmcnt; when there were genuine issues of material foct, and the issue of liability was based on the wrongfol acts of the Appellees incident to three Real Estate transactions and the fatal act was done and approved, at least three times, but explained away as clerical error. Propositioo of Law No. IV: The Ohio State Courts erred and abused their dxscretion y granting, and affirming the grant, of Appelleep Stewart Title Guaranty Compony's Motion for Summary,^c^dgmct^t; when there were genuine issues of material fact and the issue oflliabllity was based on the wrongful acts of the Appelleo aoproving the clerical error of another Appollee three times; and holdihg themselves otit as the Principal, with privity of contract; as well as vicariously l i abl o for the acts of its agents. (i)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont i nued) U, `a 10N o s. e. o s o o 0 o a e o os '3 ERI T.E ^I C, 1"se td 4t ':.! ia ^^fi. `e, I C ;:^ o s. e so oo. o o u o s a o e s jipp'':;ndtx Copy of Decision Nunc Pro Tune of the Franklin County Court of Appeols, Tenth Appellate Distriot, rendered on February 13, 2014, bot not i ssued until February 18, ( ii )

4 CERT1FICATE OF SERVICE +{ h+^ut}d;ns `n.lgtled doeg, he.sre',^a,' i.'.^ i t^ fy i..?y}ct rj t r ss.", M^10; 3 '>ṣ.l) C"1,) " '' COPl J Oi the f Ot A{)^i ng ^7riF ^{ n ^ ^"^ t P(; {>.;til.c'^^ỵ _7 ion f P^ t oc h'^`.^ r.^;^i") ^ l e4^ ^ rs4; i 'r "^r a t:t1.e P.^E c.1^ti'^i ^ra!!+^e'..f l,.i J.fy'y3.g: to, f'^^i c hoj^.:i' 2, Fis' t h F i. }. ^; I. 1 4 L 4 e t C o 1. ^># m, 1 } usa '^^..F ; 4 io 4 '4 2z 1: g o1 ^ d Coum "^J.s' I fo A 3..:.^'.'_ R te vm 1Y` ^ Titlkn {?i.1t.'t`ont v C,C'1Erponya `ii.e..rel J. Si.f4 ^µ'{ pi^'?!{,^,.. ^. ;..^ s f,y# 9. : ^ Ep^'^..1 I4 o t.r. f`io 1, n ` t r ^^. ^,.^io J^,ri?. F..,31"`g ^yjti ^t _ 1 ;^}I1f% ^l r `` tf } 8w ^^ E ^,.o ^S, Ei.^l^ i.,a^. ^^^^k.^:^^ ^. 0 i1 t.. h & i s Dey `; i 1^, 2 "l { m ^ a -' 5'm ^Z i ^: u f"i ^^FDEf\+.Z^^^' APPELLANT CCI #A P, ^ ^ BOX 5500 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO PRO SE ti^i^

5 EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF P[^BLIC 0 GRPAT GENERAL TNfiPPPC'C $Fs1Y1 TMtdf7it'1PCC A C HT?C"i'PBM"E"Y?!i! t^ftab0'cf't't1'r'tn^1ete; naar.a-rgn'a4 This '`l:se demands review?:;l't x this Ohio ^ S^,f, ^^'^:;"'^e tobly ^`, t? '^..'Ci.. Most `1^ [ s the facts and oe"g3.i^`r^t'n^s of i.^'!w s"ppy'^rt f 1:^ot this Court ':a';cep'f the jurisd7 ct''. on and r '' I t e±,'r the df' c1 sions h^^, the low er c^'#^., ^" " s. R^: ^' ^ c^: fx r:.c.%l ^. ^f, this ^!;civil wmse pr esents the f,p`^ec.^, i.,4".^^3,^ ^'C^^r(^$) :^i"op^3s^.'il!af^s of '.q.', from the erroneous Decision and,s,^'^^gment Entry of the FC{:7n;lin County Court of Appeals, Tenth App".^ ^ ote 9i?tri,c."?' rendered on ; `bruer'^ 1 3,, C^"ryf^!., but not issued until +`ebi"f)ory 18, This Decision off11"mc:.d the Franklin County Court of Common `.}lea5, Judge `.uy Reece, 1,,.^ecisl.on t`l? d Et`"t t" y dc tet`^ April 12, 2013, d e'^'.1'! 13'1 g ' ^^:? pc ll ^'':^l `^, i ^ t it^f ^^,w. ' ^Yi!"ie^"` o"1', s Motion for Summary Judgment; gron'ring E,ppellry^s, Preferred Title g Guo!"'`7t'9ty Agency, ii3c. and Frank FrvE"'f'os9 and groc tit"?f Appelleef s Ste+' 7nrt Title iuo "C?(1'"y Company's Motion for `''.1^.`^?m..f'.^C'y jf.1`^gment. ; h1 s Appe!^l direct ly follows the Court of Appeo.3.s Decision. Moreover, oil opo^^^^^ s hcti^e been timely filed. `"?^ec^ficol1.ys this cose involves, inter ':^lja, the ic1terp "e`:,g E:io 1 t hy both the trial : o'.1 rt onr{ the c+"r ui" : of oppenj. ^ A '" ef?ordin' I Ap,^^^^'s:' lla!'1{ ' rights to a fair tc 'iol or fair pr^'jceedt?'tgs. Re:Y;emhrP", ttis c^ e Po- ende':! '."^i1 the _.. ^ ^ ^` Summary ^ l.t,:^#;^1f,^;`^, t^ lower courts d".'.6 t ^ lb F ('^ ^^5^^^' ll"fi^^.^, ^ "io'ft ^^(? for ^ l-j t`. ^ ^g b' ut i.^rontil lg A Y)4=ll^'.es Mt'7ti^^^ fo:'' Summary Judgment; all but (1;^eclUd{in. 4fn nd luijl ccq?.:le"ln on the merit s. In this regoi'd, p1 anse t ofre note of the demeaning tone of the Court of?'':.ppe"ils Decision and?w^pf ",^.`i^'ollt Entry.^ ^.^ 7 in the Pre1 iminar 9f ^^atters a where thet court - r f, ^,^ ^ i:.3 `.,..^^, ; "e,, 's.^: e^'i ort to it^ ^orr,r, A: s sell..^i n ;`, and i all Pro Re Lit? g"' nts, ' thc ^^ ^; `^ '^^ 1 o. '^;"lf.. ' -' l^;^ ^' s^','"^: t^ ^,,C3.fle f "!^^ ^^s^ and standp'#rds ns litigants who retain cof-asnf's.. Moreover, we must accept 1

6 ^ the r ^ sults of o u r o wn ^. ^. > ^ ^. ^, ^`,. r,^. ^,,3.,. ^S... T E ^, 1 r, a ' t h is is sai d in the some br^ atin. ; ':i ;^l i^,a d,^'^`1 'ti' ^.`^ `^ ['^.EL y s,4^ p.f _.i^ s ^? l+^^3tt qry ^,^s th a. ^r " ^; and i^l^^.... t.'ec.?^, a.^ '^ icni^a^i ri.. ff.^ t+? ^?f;,^}, t,^ t: `7 that fell outside the parameters of his A.`;'riimeni'i of NrI"orm However, thes :; 1 ss3,' e", 3. gi"i ore^", hy the r o? 13`'f. of A`3 pe^^ lsp p(^ sef I ted Plain ^""^" ^. ^ _ ^..^^, which can he noticed at fjn' ;?"1i."17:nt?nr' tkci^.., ^ `^', See State V. Fischer, 128 Ohio St. 3d 92 (2010); State V. Scott; , 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 241 (2010); State V. Perryman, 2013 Ohio 1087 (2013). AcMordinrly, at wos PlJ k n.. 1 #n ot y in z..1im1 d of 3 1 sglfj, for y4. ( s.. f at i S rt of f^^ i^)f 1^ ^^o l`^. t o fai l ^";,, ^ even! i ddl' ess these Plain `.A ri o`',. in i ac[., ^; ^ ^many,,<^^; c^''...<<^^ ^i"^r^ ^!'^ Ohio a,^ove conflicted over the tre'7tment of plnin errors, both on direct opti:1-"al tmc'^, po...at judgment; thi;:, ;.,.a'?e pre. ents a case tt'out.^ ^c or great..^ 'ecle^e ^" _ l.zntei'=stse Therefore, G'lese issues,4f gep'1tl`.i need ;.,y this Ohio Sup ^em, Court. ^^-^ ^ review onf`' dir`nt;i.)'?f? ^_ ^., t. ^, '1' ^ ;,. n9 t.;r k.'. the ai ol'i sis a ste' f^^ ^`ti 3^^ " and " "{^.,^,. ^',Z 1?^,^ the standard of review. The "^^nklii3 County CoiE t of Aopeal'.i should '^';^ >;.a i s. a1,+p.ci4sd t..s SJC;. Novo review of s`'s^^mor4j judg'3fei1t^'+n However,.,,,.,.. from the L^^ ^^..lr:`o} ^rs^^r^^r^^ o^f,. its k^3^ ^s^.,. r ^ _, on, ^r^. ^c;^r^^.. rre^ft. deference to w..,'^e tr^l ^.., ^^^..... ^r ^, ' s dt='termi!1.^'s.tic'n> This `'f?:' not an independent rev^ ew> UnfC33`tunfzt'?"I 9 this 3^'J'^ 7r:., i s hoppen1 n _.^ to ".on y Qi o se ^th ^?.^' ^,,. ^.. C^C# '^ Ohio 1. ^ ^ *.,... : ^ ^^' ^' '^ ^'.^ ^f: t.? ^ s.^ pp <^,,^ ^. 4',,^ '^ r ^ t i.1u;-' to simply rubber bber sta?'`t p on';l and ^ il tr3; o} cou".. " decisl on^:^,, the c i4f T l 3 n this co7 e, the Court of A.3, 3 '' al., f '" De'<` isi!') y: is c' s i`1 ^., ^! a '' c^i",^ L 1., o": ^ f" ` { ^ esg a nc' udj ng C3. v1 l Rule e 56, o"i d to oil th^^u Kgo ^ z ^. i "ri^: ^.,, ^ ^:,.. ;^ ;^ o Therefore, it pres ents a "soif,tanti^^ constitu'.ionf^l ^tt^^evi'7 ^; ^, ;^ ^..n r;l"^f ';^'.^ing rights of prl.it se i S: tigcn^^ to; not onl y tl l o.i;r but ^^lc'^ ;J ^ e^' f,^ ^. ^: a^^ : ^. f' ^; "''^ ^' e^? t.^ ^2 ^,: s, ^. n a truly `7':; ^,^e^"^._,` i~ l s^'^^ '^ ^ > This^' - Y ^ ^;,^^' Co,` f +: m' i,-;.^ act tf:.i t e'iio':f e these t3,r`l ^)e`1 ^' i m^';"^, E,('} t.,^ ^' the i1j`ocsse T, ^) s Co..;r^, must t}'j'^^. i,, '.^t^f? ; 3'(; j' <( risdl "' tion to h'=` `1 r this cos, :` and i evi+' w the ^ '.. ri 'J P" C of the lo`{.., r coe. E i tso 2

7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ;''efore ^,-ie hf^'"±if1 d.1scucsic1gl th c a 5e n`?r focts, olee5^ note t':sot this is a civil cnriea o,v-.i'?ere en+,..s'? 7^7r^'^l C^^o}.ii^" t. ^ ^.^^ ^! ftf^ ^''fi^rs l }-.^ st :} r i fil.' k ng. Moreover, th?,s was ocontractual r^^ntionshio case? nuol ving }oney; de5pite A^^ell^^ ^tg1niort Tatle'^ ossertions to ^^ntror '^^^ ' ^ t.u ^3,.r ^ ^: E " ^,t:^ ^'s ^ Ca ".1 i" ^ i from the r^^^ estate tr^^soctinns in question herein. They got pc"lrj. However, t}^^^ only ':rtao ^t to fioc}.:fs on foct thot ^Fr. Anderson received so,me ftirlr;s. in fact, unlike crin^^^^^ coses, t^is is -n tri,il^^ adversariol proceeding; in ^which, ^ha. coiart^ should not give di?lferer^^e t," ony one porty or side. Unfortr.:Enate'I.y, thi^ di c1 hop;aen herein. The trial court gave un^q,u;^l fovor to on.e side - the defa,ndon^s... ond allo^.,ar..^$: ^ fi deference to one sid^? - thr,fl''af?ndont"g `,ih:ile!"'ee'^r1^;^ tr^"{'^;l.f'1g,.. i.`tt^ f" { '^^,, il.^' ^^^e very rr!4^^ ^r^^..^i:^oi'in^.f EiiIr} no Ct^I^rrzf^;.,^ ot the ijl^^l ntiff, Mr. Kii' L. A,nfierso`'i. In Cnfit, de^oiip the prer;l.^^ of an equal.^^^ying ( 8'^lO, iiro Aiidergi.?n''^..^)^t.k#.?_f^ C'> L: 3.ii.:ig9:1#it ontt dtlcarcf,..f"i"ted pe1 7 s.f i r ^,jp^.'r.^ r),ar nmoui L. in tho. e ly'^ s7 of 1. S F e triol ^.. o}.,:} rt. t hit3 wn:: and is?,,lrong and or^ judtced fir. Anderson's Cnse hefore^ i-f: eve^s got ^tc-rrte I. In r^^^e!v';inq the Cotirt of Apoeo? s F-ntry hiereint this disfavor and lock of dlefi=re-nce continued agna rlrt the ^^O Ḍ^^ Innt, Kim 1-. Ander^nr;. I n addition, da^^^^e this ^lexn^ ^ De Novo Review, the Court of Apnpt.iSs ^cr^f;... i h^' t!"1:^^. court's det''rm1ni;.tions, on every ^3of point contention, i}^or^' i hnn ord? nory deference. Agoīn, not only ^^qns this ^^4,ror?g, ^'±^^:s ror <<?os,.^'r in o;^plying the sta11 da r C.`': of judg,ments. r ev1 ei'.^ in this co c, e is 3'11o-1 v ing st. E it?mo r y See Titenok V. Walmort Stores, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 12AP,- 779, 2013 Qh i o 2745 (2013). 3

8 S"^^cifT colly, this wns not on independent review, w h% i thout i.^r+ ^ w^ f 1. d^' ^^ s'^' nc,^ to ^` ^? `;' ^` ^" i ol ^' C% ^.' P" ^" s d'-'^' ^'`>^ t f"r^ti..^',`~is, See...,. Harris V. Ohio Dept. of Rohab. a Corrections, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-466, 2013 Ohio 5714 (2013). Mo( e specifical ly, here, t:ho F1'',at4ltol!n County Co'.!{ 1of Api^.,t ^l.t' 31_ Tevored the rldp?lleesd They overlooked major ^enu^^e issues of fact;. such as the fact thot R ed;.?:;r ^,^3 Baf'leyy, ^^ employee of Ap{)??^ le"ms 4 ) ^e^'err^'^i^ Title, odmii tc.'^, ^'f to wroi`i ^ 7 C `4f 1:. ^..^^^3 I ^? C #,h " 1 3 ". -x f r ^ "., ^?^r.:^ t^ ^`} r ^ t F l. l 6.^y '' ne^," s +".^' C, f_}t 1, C"I 4j } l c^ s es second mortg{jg."cq W Qr th.'rf the '..oa^1"t of Apped'tl.,^,^ Jost l,`.n"+r es the fe+." t that Ap 7 ^^ ^ lont Anderson?`! ^; ; ^ C^ ;n.^. ^1a^"!'g^. ^i ^n.^^t^ fih' title ^`5, Jmp-1C^^a t:i^i^- this; there ^^';^ ''^ ^., no evi?r. hdence '^^" e +^^o ^; involved ^1a l l. Again, Rehectao Ba( ley soid i'^".. was clei"^ coi. err;7l" o HoNelser, the Court of fia?}r3'af^.'^, `^ F like the '^r}^.; tri-ol court, simply states that because Mr. Anderson accepted an d ^ ^,;} rr ^`^,iner; thos e I! 1 it ds, he w^'!s ` ;! rf} nc7. i.=1. t:,' th:? F' p'} ell"' es give +`? ny mon ey bo>i: ^' ^,^' <^. Tfi z s."et(',r n1 n:'7'".l.t:}n m"1k.r^,s no.`s.+~.^',nsc:-; < In foctf these zmprorer reter;^^^ntions predicote tte errors herein. Remember, again, it was not Mr. Anderson who listed his i^`^t,#sii}r ^,,;z.. 4 t^''k^^^ ^a L. s a s s,^ t,;?^ ^'t d ^'^a^ "rt^j ^7g^' s, Yes, the ^3 *^ ^1 "^ C e^;}a. ~`?'^ Ermoney, j?? t as re 1 mhv.i r^ em;^ nt for business debts properl'v invoiced to the closing cf'mporiy; R*^ths:r, it No^ the Appel lees, who listed or approved the listings, s, of these expenses ^.:^s second tortgoges. Further, the evidence preser;ted at triol showed ^^ot the Lenders w^ _?.; ^^?.!^ '"^s.'tf..4 4se ^ ^ " ^1^ tmderj these ^ r`en.^.^^ 'aii1.h!"`:, ^.{r them..reing second mort^^i7^^ne ^"h::, ^.e^^c^i^ ^+!,.9^ < p N ^ i ^^^, ^ 7 g^ (^,.^:7 ^.. 1; ^.. ^ ^ i,!.a ^ EY ^ the i ^..,f, { f t ormo/^}.. i4;,,^^^.,^ tyi ^^ ^.^^ ^.. t o t he m {` py '^. 51 ^`{ 7 `. jy Appoll ','e s, M r. Anderson s- ^> `'^d tlr`'i^;^j^ "^^^+ do to ^hi`^,thf-:. wi t h h. +^ los? "ic3 ;. The scheme to fe^nfw? (dr : fr o?.:1;`i ) the lenders was ri^-^' tn^ewpi"efet'?`ed -r^ `, r ^ ^ : ^ ^ l'k, t^nc^. ^,: ^;^ ^, $ ^ r^ r,... t o T t lf.;os wrong., ^.9} ^., ^ Ij^. ^., ^ e (. o r ^1Sr S.. ;,;^.?;,.. e^ '^. i^^ 1,: '^'. R^, ;atif} ^ to ^.. ti ^^. ^.`^^', y Kim U. fy' ndef" son,.`' t # i.., thi..^ is of l ot hop^ ;;? } er^ ^.>'I shi ^ tr' ^' " ^. ^ ^ t, t.^ t f,f 4^,,. ^... ^.i4j',.' t F d. s i evl e1"'{ e Mi3! eot}g'^,. rf it. wo3. error I p"^ to!-?r`..^^^t ~f. 1 {}y^ '^^ r`?" t.t ^ 9 5 { f, g: ^^^ s^' r ^f G,.. '^. q ^ f^ ^.J ^^.". 9^..,,eei` 4

9 ARGU^ENIT ^N STUPPoWT OF PROPOSIVIOt^^ OF LAW, Prooosition af Law No. 1: The Franklin County Court of Appeals erred by faflir a to consider or notice Plain Errors ursuont to Rule 52(B); arg6ed in both Appellant's Merit and ReDTy Brzefs, which the Court of Appeals erroneously held fell outside of the ^crameters of his assignments of errar. Specificolly, of note, ^Appellant argued that it was error for the trial court to ^ront S^s^^ry Judgment to Ar^oellees without, first, ordering ^t^^ production of outstanding Discovery. More specific^ly, the denial, and Decision affirming by Court of Appeals; of 40 seporate motions, many pertaining to compelling Discovery, constituted Plain Error, in and of itself, and was properly within the srope of review on appeal. In this First Proprsition of!mow, the Appellont, Kim L. Anderson,. O sky ^'i1i,. 5 `^^^;^i 'e^^p,.,., ^t7^c`'" < t^? i"e^a y4^'!^?^"?^; <:^ ^:. 1 }, ^'.' ^'^i^'^b.^ _ ^.4"^I. ^, ^'..i^l^ }f ^,.^i.}r'^' ^tf.., f^ :, oi^t^^s f^,. sr'o`j:^ of review herein. Most notoj'lyy, fii'1ding thot mof1 ' issues, i ^"'isc,^i S by the Appellant in both his Merit and Reply Brief..", fell O43t swh. of the porqmeters O his rf^signm?nts of er?"^'tro SpC^cif1,^olp.y, Mr. Anderson orgued thot it :> r ^ ^ error for the "r C" io! court to groi 1 t Summo( 3i Jf.! dgmet^ t to App"^ ^ ^ ee"',:^ i'!3 i hout, first, oi +."ef aiig the?'irod'.?ction of outstanding Discovery. ^'^'Ar"3f^"^ ^.^,., the denial of 40 sepornte motions, :,many, r,^^`^`toip'61,(`^g to i^;^"l'^.;^e^.^.3^:{^^+ s:^11ri Discovery; constituted Plain Error, in nnd of itself. Thus, the Dt;'ciciori?.,fl ftrnk^i4g these denkci,ls wos,^rope1 ly within the -.^.'7Go?,^'^ of. 48^J^Jt=.3i review on {/{ ^Y'-.p t,^.,l b Firstly, let's remem=lel", thnt the underlying decision objected to wc^^ the grcsnti;'1g of Summary Judgment to ^.!^^^e^..^.e^,^.^, while there?g^'i^"3^^ "Es ^: and Dis^ r ) v'-? r^^ outsto'1 t`r ing. Under cleqr lego1 authot` 1, t ^t, _ ti.3 it t^'^"1^" ^}' ^'s ^;r:,1 ^1?^ to law ond an abuse of discretion for the trial court to pront Summary Judgment without ollo!{;fing discoery to `:)e co>4p1et^.: ^^ 'o See Plott V. General Motors Corp, 71 F.3d 1190 (6th Cir., 1995). Thus, the Court of Appeals 5

10 C;. ou^ ^ hove ef`t si lzp found '(: hc z t the dect 1 ol of these M^'J tit^' f^s^ ^Pl e'"^? ^1 ^7 " ^; ^ ) ^'., : oz;sionment of error regarding the gr onting of Summary Judgment to the ^^, ^ ^ ellee,^ ^^^ '_t M, 3". s {,` r'f ^?'^{ ^. ^' ^' q l^ r^+ also ^^ se e ^^ '^ 1 F^ i ^"i'c'^.1^ i,^',.'^l ^^n^ ^ G $`i e?` ^: +., ^ io3 by the Court of Apj )^ols t"'ffit`:"ing the denial; ' o..^^ Plain Errors t' ^t '^ ti.;t C^i x^r^'cteci a. subitac'itinl rights that may be ct.sns ide."`e"1 p even though it 'T+a", not '.d f o#,fg i 4 (. to the C'.J ur t' ) oa. ^ eng, t. one Sts'+,,.Rul4,:.^20)a i : is oyi{?m^^ic Thot the Ps.nIn Error Rules apply to both ci v t ^. a^. nd criminal pror:^edir;,s. In Yoct t the notes to Rule 52 s' ^^'I ".f? that t t hese ^`! e ;>^ t., ^ Rules yhol l apply, "On the hearing of any appeal, certiorari, writ of error, or motion for a new trial, in any cose, civil or criminal s. sid This has been consistently followed in b^:a both ` e^"^":r^j^. >.,r `^^" ^i^''^ ^^.;>i.`t ou;r te. ^ See Wiborg V. United States, 1 63 U.S. 632; Hemphill V. United States, 112 F.2d 505 (CA 9th); United States V. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985); In Re CoB., 129 Ohio St. 3d 231; State ex rel White V. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 115 Ohio St. 3d 86 (1997). P^^^a there hove been some conflicting ^ ^ ^ de^ i Y^n^C4, ^7` f..n here in Ohio, det ermiwtc^^ ions contrary to t,:^^. ^^^4^^;ing s.j ^.r (like gi : 3nting sj,"tcr';l judgment with out^^ ^^nding r? sco1'e;'a) 'p - p`.. '^"^^^ ^,. F. ^-! i e noticed ot any time, even if not ^1ro.^},^.rlaa^? ^ ^$ o _^^,l^>^.a# nm f^..}fp+o1^ ^+y^ g ^^^:^^^7^i3 ^, t h e Judgment void as a ma ter l.;+e low and void judgments {,tt e not i^.: f`5ibje'^^.'^'. toe.^..^^ concepts of waiver or res judica..4to d See < State F V. Mat $ () ' $ Ohio (^; ^ p 1 09 `NS t. 3d 54, 846 N.E. 2d 1; See also State V. Fischer, 128 Ohio St. 3d 92 (2010). Hf? rey l1 e Franklin Count y Court of.', poeci,.`' coi^'qle"^'1'^ :^M.^c r. ^? ' ^i^ 1'""3i,:^ f ^?_ l^ error by f^^ ^ ^ ^^g to consider or notice ^^loin Errors purwunnt to r Rule 52(B) ond #" J l1 ng that these nrguments i ex l oi..# ts1 de the po " ai i 1 ete1 s ^tf r^^:^ '.^' li"#^i +: s ^ assignments of erc`t!ro This Supreme Court must rr'vien oi1d ocr:ept th^' ; w1ur7 SdI,f. i:';n herein t o ''^^J^ hea I. J Sr this f-r^:^i.:1{.},.^'^^. [, i^"?i^l of Low f"^ 4" '^^` /^^^ Na4 " 2:^ 7 4S. f `^ J^I 5,.,: ks F y'{ Me ne ri 1}+.f,i. } t^' BA~ ^ ^ fs on this ir` ii te. 6

11 Pra as ^ t^ a^ af 4aV Na. II, The- Ohio State Caurts erred and abused their discretion by denying, and affirming the denial of the Ippellant's Motion for Snm^ary Judgment; ihen there were no genuine issues of material fact and Aooellont was entitled to Summary Judgment as amatter of 1ac^. ApaaificalIy, the issue of liahi I zty was based on the wrongful acts of the Appellees incident to three Real Estate transactions and the paramount act was admitted to by one Appellee and acknowledged by all athers. More specifically, it was error for the courts to ignore or place no significance on the undisputed fact that Rebecca BnrleyF an a^playee of Preferred Title; admitted that she listed the Appellant's Business Debt Invoices wrongly as Second Mortgages on the HUD-1 Settlement Statements. This Proposition of Ua':, i"equests this Supi"eme Court to ^ ^' ^-. v3.ew ^, ^ "^''1 e denial of ''3ppel.Ca33F y Kim L. SfSk:elso11f J M4}ti'^.^n for Si.PTmory ^^.)V.`;4.I^^^L. ^5' 4^ ^.'4> ^? i, o^. i' specsfic^^ly, that the Oh.#o SLoteCo53i'ts erred o!!d k..lburf3^. _^ ^. F 1'# ^. 1. " Ci ^:,: n C,;r t 's..!"s n ^" ``.3 +'S by ^^nylnwl,, ni"3d off? rm};.ng the d{',n1c% l, when there Ne?"" no g genuine i1 ^: ^D ^^5s. of material fact and Ap^^^lloilt ons ~nti.tled tr, Su"moC`} JudrFm{'rlt os t, l'^1 i ^i ite(` ` of 4,^''. ^?.t.,. ^^''I^';7,., 5' ^^ s^,^ ^o`^ F,, t ^'+.. r^ ^f, ic;p^ 1 tḥ ^^^ i ot o11d the e' 3 iden(; ' t:) r;a y enta d even ^t.:$nced` '"{ b..^^ o^ l pap ^'`"r'e i`. ies,' th^^,.s9 -^,^.4^.^.?,^ not.^^^ f^> Mr. Anderson, rou;r}d the listingl g of his R+..' s1. ness Invoices ^,` +" s Second Mot tgogf' s on the HU i ^ Settlement ` totemec~l t:,. This ^ ct caused the e lenders to ff f nd t he ^^ eals. E': ;#': t'~ t.^ er p both the tr1; r? l Cof.,l y:" t?.and t}'i ;? Cil u3^" t of Apoeali 9 3. ^ 3 1.^3 k^ ^`^?». s^ ^' ^?ese clear facts ond deny Appel'a.ont's Moti^"^;^:i for Summary Ju{'gm^'^tt. in fact, the ; Court of Ap'"3 et"? ^ ^ ^ ecis? ^"3I"1.^ is exti em^^ ly C` ismis`^ ive on this ^ r{" ;, oi" y simply stating in Paragraph 22, t^.. We ^ d^.,^'gf ^ ^ ee> appe1 lnnt coi;l,.3 not p^ evoil on his motion. Theref, ^" or ^ ^ his `^ 3 ^-,. ^: nmr st ' nt ^ ^ of-- E,;, rror I. ^; overruled." See Appendix with copy of Decision Nunc Pro Tunc of the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District. Civil Rule 55?roviries tha^^: wum:^ory J ;dt.ament ie4t he ^^^nted whe n it's /`eterma n`ad. (^ ) no genuine i7 s`.` er, ns to any ' I; ^c^ 1"1 f i('` f^,, ^ ^ o,,^ t 3".;^koi?"3 to he litigated; (2) the ti1 oving po i"' ts."a' is e nti tle^. ; to E udomet i t ai, o matter 7

12 of lowy osrd (3).t.,;. OPPear ` from the evidence thot s"eoss1;tat3.e minds con come to buy.: ofse conclusion and viewino such evidence most strongly in fc^vor of the P(3rtY agc'1in.t^ s whom F made, til ot ^ o n " lu" i oc$ is adt! e " ; e to M h' 7 t oo"t`l. United, Inc., 50 Ohio St. 2d 317 (1977). the motion for,} ^;s`^'^11^icf'^^',,1+_1dc^^'!^e." 'L" judgment b ^' See Temple V. Wean i s Adri,`r,t ir`nol1y, under Civil Rule 56(C), hom:i1or,a judgment is most ap, ;? ropr" ii.t te 's' h" l ^.^i ` e "^`"'^F t:c.t ^.n ^:? ^".^ ('1^ '" 9 ^C. ^ ^ ^.' ^^tiy^.,r'c^`;!l ^ s'^ i t.. ^ that ^.: ^' ^E fi"i^^? r:>ovifig poi't`,.t t oi tei" ^ n o^eqtlnte period of discovery, "ir^^` not,^+e^'y been ^a" 4.H^! l^,.^ra^ pro; i ^^^ evidence st.^^^ic+t ent to prevaii ot triol. See also Dresher V. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280J(1996). In the znstnnt co;e g the Appellant. _! i E^ t o* < ef.}._. ^'? s i s^^ art^^1^ 3 ^' ( G to '^^ t:^ ^" c?7t..l ( ^. s that.. t'`3^^! ^^ ^'a ` ^`.^^' '^ ^? ^:^''^ l'.. 1^ _i. ^ e 1...^.,..1 ^:^s t^ f I E.O t e 3 s.ci ^a ^j ^`t. 1. S^ J''^c 3.f i ^al^ ^: ^ 1 -^^ A ^.^ {''' '- '^,,t ^^^? " ::^.1 ^ ''i 'n:d:rj.lr^ ^ " t oi^.^: :^^.i,^ r rv `^ ^ r ^?rt,t.19. t ted to by Rej ' c!:; o.'%orley. She e c2 eatw ^ d the B i4'' t t I i g;7^ of Mr. A^^d@,. r7 Oni.i i. nv+j ^ ce s l.i{' Second t` or{ g;,fr e..rie Ti r 3.."> is wf iot!" o`< s `e d the d'? ni7 to he f unded ; Ft/ the lender s. This fnc"c is undisputed o d, in fact, conceded to ;^,^; oll r.y ^.i '^ e po " ties. Yes, they try to v;7 r gue thrs t it No+, ai k ^", ^.. a ^`' ;.^'^s ^'.c^"^ +^ ^' ^` ' G"% 1",,,r "..dkit thic`3 does not L..ho`tg'x.., the focd. th+kt `^^^^ellont won charged o!( convicted due to the fict thot t;?~ se. Second ^ ^ `^'t^3^'+'3,^g.,.,, ^rs'"1['e ^'r a"i.à"-^+^,^, 1. i F` :^ ^'. ^ t,! i^'^y fa ^^";^:^C't no influence enc ; or coc? ti" ol over these documents. :^ t wos et' I o " for the courts to ignore the clear facts o `' d p',,: t : i ru a^ er e "f? pha-c is on i i? e fact thot Mr. Anderson wos convicted of s 'ro""^^doing. Under the civyl rules, Api".3ellont, Ki i' L. Anderson, was e t} ii led to S!.1mmoC y J zdgment. The only r?oc s?.`^le quest1.^n '.'as the amount of dt^:mf g^s, HCtr'ever,!f". summary judg.i{e is 3.. i s 7. 39f.. :f 5.^cu 1,o ~ ff in nature, this remedy CDUld h'ih?v'`'^ been t a J f ':^ ei ed by L } i Y3 lower courf.:1 0 S-yJ ecii i5..a.[. ly 9 t n..' 1 :d R r!. 1 9 r^ sutfi i mf'' 1 ^^ j?- dgme1z t '.`.^? 3 the issue of ' iabilg. ty ''1 lr,3 ne o f j," i ;', Ap pell" ; f met et `1 t:^ burd e n! 8

13 ^ ^'^^^ ^^{^s^^ll'.:^^ ^ p`,.:. g.. '^^^'^.. ^. i ('t(.z s..f :..,:^^7 f^f"^n{'^:^, ^,..,'."^f.:^' igno ^:!. re d., =: J' n o^ ;^. h,^ '^ ^ t^ S. ` ^'#,`^^"'A r ^! ) e ; ry ^ n. ^ C could only come to one conclusion oild ihot n;'t^ in hif 7avor > See Seredick V. Karncsk, 99 Ohio App, 3d 502 (1994). It wos error for th^", loner courts not to find in his f{.;vof ond grant s ^ s -xl^^r^t f.,^ i t`rrlcr^,,.: ^n";.. The Court of Ap!:.^eols Decision is devoid of i'nr reel C;rg : nt or!'jn^'1_,.,^^r^,.:.^ j ^. T: ^^,. 'sars ^',^. ^ ^" ^... #^ ^.:f^., ^;, ^:'^e ^, ;'! st look l^' ^ ^ 'f. '"f Y:'. ^" " J f!.^x court's ^!. < ^. ^:1.`.' " ^'^ ;^ r; f^1'"j Ef({, "y, H^^e, it be`"ome quite og1popeirvit ti"!^y"},. Judge that t I ^^..."^'::^>^^.^ ': 5^19^ ^-t h * is.1; r'' 1 ^,' a P<"'C'hops, he g+^t confused p`egc`c`l'^^,^'it^.. the ^s^:`riji.`'"i ^ theories `^`i ^. ^.o.^ ` i. i ' + "iond forgot the most important fact. Rebecca `'arl'^!,, +^:i^,-,, on ^'^ ''^^^"^^` ^'^` ^.^ ^, ^^ ^ ^' ef'^ ^' %" ^^ E i1 le, ; 3 i epf :' r`^,' d 1": nd s ur mitt:`''^ ^,. l^ i^` f ol^'`e I'^ ^_il,r p ^,.., : 1,.y^,f..^.+,., f '^ F r^,...cr fi s^"- `^ E i#i alj. three c-losin:ef'..^1. a'"! i1n4+. F1.srk\o.''..i ooprovef ^tl lt y ^ f, 1^t.7 ^ r^.f'^ci^.. <.*. `3^!'ri for f ^. (^'^`1^^'^ et; ^} ^ ii;'^i ^K 'f'rsy'a^^ 4 t, T itle ol^.r.,^3^'n^rh^^, Lla^,'^ ^,^s ^:`f.s`t(^^{,.^t,^.. j^'^r. f'n'^^, ^^l;j'i..';^f?l±,j. <.a '=t b^ ^,f, B _lsi1'1ess 3 ndroice'=, not Second Mortgages. It 'a.". 1.:1nre{ s^na'x'' ^`^; 4 t. ^ ^, y ^ ^ t d^..,, q as ar gued by Ap.^?^.l ^.,.,^s, ^"?^t!t they ^'r?l ^^:ỵ,.. ^., on ^^fi. d.^ lt^^" ^"`'^^s ^1. _., _... ^"^..,.fz,.... ^1 r,.,... ^'?` "^ ^ by Mr. A1sdei fi4 in." This `...in^^lysis is flo:fede It was an abuse of discretion r yy^! ^ o S t`s;.:^ t.w"., f^^j^' ^^of!'^ ir ^S1 i' ^:: f^ g^^ ti.^ S^'^1.. f^ F i # # ^ a Anders, on; ''i.,^i ^. ef. ^^ ^^l...^ i! in.i. i^ ^..jc,s. ^^ i3. pro eertin;^ and under these facts. See Hambla.n V. Do4agherty, 2007 Ohio 5893, LEXIS ( 2007); Willioms V. Aetna Fin Co., 83 Ohio 'St. 3d 464 (1998). However, this is ryxr5^^ ly what ^^^ogpei^sf.^ ^ o^: f^'^^:^... ^;< ^ir^! court le^:^e:^. a:'^'t was of3^tmf;d by the Fro;'ka.in Cou nty CotiC'^r: of f,'i tf^^''.^il ^a.,. T h e r. Record t, j;1o"3"^rt... :^ a f^iy ^^d in, t r r.si R ^^.,;,{.,,a,^"'ta" ^: '^ v :^,i t P ^tfnc..'^^: ' fo ^=`^r1^^,a^- ti'i r ;, His r ;oa. ion jas sups.i of t`; d by Af r i( ri vits =,.? it r t s howed thae, th ere were x i : S_ ^ material facts at is sue. Ap1^ ^ ^.^l i.^ r"'t7 i, ^"^. i l., ^ d ^f- r 1..^ f ' ^. r ^j e1 ^' 1` i i, P a^ '.. ^_^ "" ^ 1. ^ ; ; ; ^.w 1 '1,r cṙ 1.. ; ^ spece fii. showi ng tri f.:s1 abs e i snueso See Baker V. Coast to Coast Manpower Li_'C, 2012 Ohio 2840, 2012 Ohio ^^p LEXIS 2488 (Ohio App 2012), ur^.^ o^:a^^i^`y,^: n^'fl f>^ct., nre.en^4" 1.i'1,. r^ {3 i^^^. r^ E"t' r^r^.^.^..! ^^ plti^.., ^^ ^ fi ^~'^ 'I,I^- _^" } ` (^^^^ the 9

14 ^ 10mer courts erred ond ^,^^i.,n^r... _ rhaf^..^# ^cr;i^^.^1t...;,.^. by.. _. ^^^?t^y^tt,,,.., i.,f:,, ^^^^sl^^ft^ ^ ' : ^^^F 5 t.;y Motion for ~ummortf J 4dg^^ent on^ grant1 ng Api:telleer s '1ot z ''.,^^i^i. 3 t.^, ogo3.ii,. ^. ' ^'^;C.3.ec,.e^? i n t1^ t h e lower courts' tr^.^ntm!^nt of the ry '..3ellont }`^,3`''^ that <^ ( oir E. rfo.f waa s defi i e{,:' > A P ro Se ie ^ ^ go ng. ±-.E or i not receive o 3 o.. r proe.e;3ding in fh3 i:.l t ^.^i courts. In f: i' is e..o 3i" p odd the f. ^'ct f-hcj^^ he is also iiicor+,. rat",'d which was afforded much significance; s^^3r^1^:^ you ''^(`!e,^.^. a s.1hstaetial constitutional issue of due pnoc';ss. im fact, thef:;tur! `" #:1 5, this.' o1, v^'? ni`=' n4' ^ xc1' se to j u ^' ^ s ^ " ^,. ^. i +V' a r^;'l^''"^ t f., ^, on the ^:.11^"l, ^'ft,^ ' ' " `' Ct.^1^^'^,, doc+w' l" ine to deny Ap??ellt"k 1"! t` s u lf ±? j t! s. Tl^ ^ ^^^ is also r; f ^ a^: l ^1 ^^ ^. s^. ^.1 ^` _ t ^ ^,. " tt'c 1 fii al lyp in order to conclude that tr!e unclean ha7'sds d octrine a!'^^liesj and therefore, ^ ^^ry?^9 ^^ r. Anderson's ^,^ ^the^ relief, had courts ^ to find that his claim i., in "eq^^^ty'. However, this conclusion is u9^sup?^^rted hy the I r`:'>'yrs. Even the ci?s^,^' site#, by `;pr)e.l..t,'`aes supports MC. Af i d^:.' C s;"? n's ^ onsi ` te? nt!'^. ^' s.^ f. ^` ^... +^,% n ^`; h_^'` ^:':., ',^1. e s':';'. ^:?'^ L, a l^' ''^ ^. ^' `^" ' <'.} ^ a3 ^i,f1 this ^ction. See Trott V. Trott, 10th Di st«no. 01AP-852 ( 2002). `n this : e^:", ard, every ''' s, ec. of Mr. r'> nderso11 ` s ': lgl' ; f wo, i-..'! s" d oncl the?>'^ ^^ trai!v not1:.t re of the reica ^ ionship?. i`t e' s n` king for spe.,4 a ic relie1 b4,:sed on the inherent duties to these Real '^ ^tlt' tt i.iti'.io^.^t.e^^'y^`,^'se.y VP.. { ^3^^i^._ ^.. '^ ^loimo34 rego9 dless of the outcome, must be considered legqi in no,; u4 ea This $^`s the true nature of the le gal rri,%3edy e i n f^.*. ^= ^, p hi s ^r '. 3 ;^ ;' 1 i,^ ^l^' ^ only j"' $,orrec?, if it way e:" t.,l i ty; on d if he < j'."' ; ot i ':7%.1 lt in relcsa ion to the ot her t-; a#"ties in ^ ^^ e trac! so?..'t,. ions. Id. this Here, :'f^"f'..jl^i ^, "3 e t. c^ e lenders, not the Ai^pe' ^ ^^s herein. At>co! dingl',.'i a it was error to use the unclean h%<n{:s doctrine to hor him relief. irt this ^osey on the question of lon, Mr. Anderson met his burden of proofp ;:a'xe such va^ ignored by the lower courts. He dem^inst roted 10

15 ^ the l^ck of a genuine issue of mr:t:eriat f^^^ on his Cl;^im.s^. T he Appellees fo?. led to rejut the Appr? llont' 7 vint E le clo1msa In f(.' ct 9 the Appe1 le s do not dj ^pu^ ^ these j a l^t. 41 `^oth;^r, they try to exqloin aw7y hy stating t^ ^ ot it was "r le.r ^ co1 er r or sa `t This, howet'{ t'^.. ^ y. i, i:l ^' y^ e.3 ^+,. not j9:..f s1" if!r their oct?. ona a These C^ enf. o.i S were not? t1 o! } gh to deny en'e! the Appe1lont'^ Motion for SummorJudgment s ^^ndf-;-r. Civil Rule 56(E). See Norris V. Ohio Standard Oil Co., 70 Ohio St. 1 (1982). Moreover, it was clear error and on abuse of discretion for the lower courts to deny Mra Ande rson's Motion for Summory Jud gment he cpeina Therefore, this Supre't Court, in the interests of justice, should oddr^^s Apoellont's 1ssope on the merits. Further, this St,#preme Court, r in the interests of t', ^., pta')l i c ^^- ^, ^.. ^.:.^n^:^ro^. concerns, resolve should ror^ doubts rzr t ^o :; r^^i,.^, ^^ the uinhili ;y of pro se 1itiunn^s and their rights to fair oc;ess in the ^,,^ :? ^. i ^ ^ ^k.,.,. ;..^ ^' ^^ nns^? ^.f ^^ t; ; ^, ^' i? i ^ s S?.,^^3^` ^ t e'f ^'J. l e Court ^ z ^ _., s`i. rev ^ iew f..l I S case ot'_`1 ^ C: ce" e^'jt jur 3 ri i! t ir.' tion 't' r e1 i i a The ArJ pellr r1, I K'^. i^,^ m ^ 4' a ^, i ^^''^ ^`,.,:^r^.r ^ p rays ;.3r^ for this reosonatz e rp, i ief, Prn nsitiora of t:aw N.I^1: The Ohio State Courts erred and abused tmardiscretivn ^y grnnting, and affirming the grant, of Appellees' Preferred Title ^ Guaranty Agency, Inc, nnd Frank Fnrkas' ^^ t ran for Summary.^uc^gmer^t; V^ en there were genuine issues of ^nc^terin^ ^nct, and the issue of liability was based on the wrongful acts of the Appellees incident to three Real Estate transactions and the fatal act was done and approved, at least three times, but explnine^ away as clerical errnr. Agoin, ws? (;? t6 s most df "tur i; 3: ncj rl bo'.tt the lf F';} er s" o' r ts' Dect..^^ fons is the,.,,, s^nnr treatment... and... disfavor ;^go... ^. Yi% s^^ ^:i^^, the i^.i pf^.^`:.. ^^^-^,^E^ Xf....., Ki m, Ft.-E 't" s; he r, ' a i^..,.. r^f?^r sa^f t here was zc: r o def " r ere ce giv en to his s'g; at?.:i s os C3 r7 ro se oc, z ncorceroted l ic ignr7 t, rdr thot Mr. Anderson e;^ even > '.^^^1 for or^;r^;.^^,^ga ^ ''.'u C:. t) F e5, he f ^ to._ ^,.^^1 E^<.,,.f^1 ^^^ i^ l footin ^^'^'1tl^:i in t.^i ^ ^ ^ "G^ c t^^^;> g h is ^ ivil n 5 t T e h e,^f. fsl.. ±^'^ ^..7 '^it e..,^,it^k^ a 11

16 roct is - this wns not the c^^ minol.one thi:,`^?..,ose should ^^,%-^,^^5 1i j^^.,9 ^ ()^... ^^ :i decided on the fa"ts ''re"'''ntnr< in its p6"ot;pedii1s.. However, in ^,.. ^]"^ii^^'ic'^1 Api)'.^,llee.^^SS Preferred Tita". 9 G3saron't"s' ^ 'Cl'`^l,,^nF.., t`^..'td Frank. ^?^ k^:.^^et, 't Mot^ ^ n for ;' [:1mmi1 ry uudgmeni.`, both the tr3 ql ond ^r--. ^^ r ^.^ en^.^ s C{7':! t' ts, 1.' ^? ^:^ "opei ly foo. i.3 ^ ed on Mr. An`'` ers'on's criminal coi"i''}! z ct1 o;1 a. " " ^1 ^'. ^, in r^ r ^j ^ 3. ^.e ^j `^,;"i + 9 the lower courts ignore the t"''cl ( nct"y ` that Re'^erc^" ^ ^.,s. ".:^^7 `'^^'rl^. i...t "9i7^1?._ ^r^^ i ^ r ^.oy^., ^ e, ofi k^ refet t ed TiL lt je r`^^:1 j:! `^Y+.r'..d t l:^l... ^., ^ri ^7 t^^^.. ^a ^!.LC` "t"c3d fl3 p ^y$1 te hr Y k rt r, ry t 4 ^^^5f ''^k^a ^^sc^ tr. '?cj^,.f^^i1t;ecinjars r invoices as second moe"tq{.:tge.,i on the HUD 1 Settlement ^tat`''ti+,^.'',nt...^. The.^s jot_,om line beif1gy not only ^ '.^'?^^; it l.'i^!!'^i ^zr'"jpellerac^ s^tlei" ^^^ep'^'"^^n^'', to ; ^1 q it '.',i 4.^ s e'' ro " and on,'l hi J 8E? of r"' iscrei 2.. :3 nj g iven that there were ts" f,', :'!on`ḍ other? 5..^^uws matter of loo. in C?3 ;pufie to gi"oni ;um":ory JudgmeEt to 'ipp^^llees: ns a The Court of Appeols, in its Decision, bpmoons the "fotql o, t" cited by Mr. An rf'-' r s `? s E. Agoi!"i g that it ', `i os Re)ect",;,r+ Bt7 I" l' y, not E A^ ^ ellnni^, that fraudulently put the second.'"o('tgogen on the closinp pa;)ers. Thus, ^,^'. '^ cou; e he did i not ".. is pf. #te thot he f e'^''r^,.? ^f ec the g ^ ;!'1 Y.±s " S ^^.,^ and, in fact, ^ 1 ^., ;.a occepted ond retained those funds; Mr. Anderson has no stonding in t:^^s'':^ ':lri"tceed1ngs. He coiln('}t assert his ulni-yi^ or defend ago3n"''^^" the g `^'.^C^^:.s of summ..^.^ry ju^`^t^^ t3^'^'^' `^^`^' ^"^`^el^,^'^'c; d;1^,^ ^'+^ his cf ^.1^i1^.n;:i^. ^ i1"e'..i{^7.i`3(,.. r..,.. conduct, :. th' co'.scrl r'hoie1 between!ppf.',ll:'es wrongful octo and his ^ loir1t:;^d in,}ui' '?. Th.is logic fails for many i ^nsif11,.:3 y bui. let's j ust los.^,,% dt the y^f^u. (F (^^'+ ir. [k>e.ik,t assertion. Mr. Anderson hod no knowledge t(1ot ^. ^''^jecco ':o("ley or on3i Ap^^^lee misrepresented his invoices as first or second martgages. He ^^cc^pt>:'t^ paj..^.^iner' ^^ t^o'^^'^;' it his for ^t?s i"!v'^i^:'^s. This ^` ^';^5..., f^^^"'^'"+^'^^'rrol.^'j f.. ^...^ doe", not scjpoo3^^ n hre^fj^ Yf ^. 1 ^^'. ; ^;'3.,. ^ 11^^ ^ z'i^ t,"`^ '^ ^ 1 l ^.{ '^.^1p See sevan V. Thrasher, lst Diste Noo Cw120783g 2013 Ohio 4776 (2013); Taylor V. Webster, 12 Ohio St. 2d 53 (1967). 12 The lower courts lost their "a^f^^.

17 Remember, once o`,'o5:ng th^a'lvje^ leas simply try to ok gfdi;^ nwqy ^ ra^. y, " #, -. '7!^?.. ^, }. `u' ``^`+'^ ; _,.:.; ^,^^... 53ti.. ^ "%C" _, 1^,' il(.'tt _ they 4 r:o^`s^.e^#i'i^'^s^rrr ^... :^ ^., sr.. 2, +....^ ^, er rors, ::^,},{'f ^ hod no actu.r.ei mollces However, in 4h1:3 the a^^^ #' ^ l.,. ':'rr ^3 :, ^; :"'^ 1.,..` t;^, ; a1 ^`t it"i.^ #^ o^."i i^`' t ^;^} rld ^tf ^ 'S" Tiie fi?cts were '^^nt this fr mi. ",^!'.t'``,.. 4 :'^`` s '` was ^`^^ ^Sa'p`. th ^ ^`,.t ^ r'' fi t ;I. ;, ^,.. '^^^:^; on c. `l s,^^ e;;?, d i fferent ( ercn;^ occasions4 UnilF.'l2n11 :'I`^^,3le. P{:1rther, +'.^ì s^"c'^'"r' ta_+'^. by '^^ the ^.. ^`^' - ^^^^,r ' "s^ y The^1. only f :.'rr"9- ^,{ n.{') i^'}, i. 3 i. ` r1,^ 'r'at f`', 7 ^.i.i. _^ r I ^ 4^* ^^ ^,,^.#. e the b{.! s inec s 1 f1vo l r` e`? were t l1 s ^' ^a ^j ns second moi f.: g 1.,^", e.'i. No one sh^'1 i..+ ld be i o'? le+`.'' by Appelln", ss a' ic,? icuioli:^ st^'i " i. Further, ^^^^^ite their assertions ^ to the conlrot"'e?y they d.?.c. i d `."^ ei ef? t from t1 the i' C` onsocty. {' ns d 513 t, they just '"o `# ^C '^,: '^ +^ e^. C^ > `"' ^.,^^4 '" ^ ^ w`+ belabor only Mr. Anderson {,;'os chorged or convicted. This wo` ' just `^r ^ ^ n {{.3f^i~iM^1 3 ^.` ^ < s /`a,o. }r.. ^.rir^e But, ' t fl o{ ket..) e The t h,l N es ck' u7 1 ^ s used the u.'w l ^ e :,,1 n h nn^,w M to; not only bar Appe llcnt!" eli '' f, h{.4 t to! {1 " t1. fy gt" anta; 3'i g relief to, Appr ^ ^ eese This wo" m.t 3;ylqceCs' hot'^ ^^ct1^ol and under legal of^^'"^" ^'it,'f s, t. 4;^ e Mr. Anderson souphf a.i.egol remedy, not on equ.ttable one. rel Morgan V. City of New Lexington, 122 Ohio St. 3d 33 (2006); and ;^he w7e.i:.rt's,.. ex State ex rel Font V. Enright, 66 Ohio St. 3d 186 (1993), which both ^ >.,: st.i^::^oort ^:^^o^, Mr. A r^:seeks nderson iegol remedies ore not subject to the uacj.eafl honds dor` t inee Any harm done in this civi +.^-{ l n s^- -^ wa s done b;^y by the AppelleesF not Mr. Andersnn. The ^nclysj.. wn, foulty Y ^ u i^.j L;^^^ly, ns stoted t^orlr, er, there were o numier of Motzof^s ond.. tst^"1^?`:^.n?'a D ^... i scovery.^.,.;,"^^^`^.. ^"F,. Cr3,^ ^,^, t. ^r1t.,, ^never r 'l ^{:-? f".'^p^"^3 ;^{,`it the ^^'t o-: ta t;i^e,1{" _.... y. : 6^ SIr :; if3 #;o' ly, the court si`i'i;`l.l rf gt"c':1`lted r ppell,";es' '"ui^?^i(?o4"^t.a Judgment ^In C!.s,, r^ i as ^ ^ ^ { ^sry `s^,^_ z ;^:.^?+.^ D ^":^, T HE ^., i'a O^: d ^ ^^ ^ in..^.^ o1:l 40 Motions at the end. Never e^ ^^,..n a^ ^ow.c3;g Mr. Anderson to 'l;aj!'t9cty Aei, o.9.d',^`e ( ece5 ve any of the 6 i3c `"^ttir^7.,^ This wos error onf^ an at{.{r^ of discrergon9 Remember, "before ruling on summary judgment motions, a judge must afford the parties ^^^quatt time 13

18 for discovery,.. " Plott V. General Motors Corp., 71 F. 3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir., 1995). ^n Plott, the c.. 1^f r' ^-!"^ ]^ ^ d e ^ l..,, ^ S,. 3 ^ 1 "..n ^^ 4, 4., ^,if ^^ t. ^ ^, t^^.r.'r'^ ^" i^.^ E 7F:.^ry:7.^t^ t s.s r e. }p h!^^ ^* S (^ ^ 4^1 ^ i1}^+:^ 4_^^^^.i ^ s l }+^ ti^ s..1 j ^ ^Ji1 fi ^y ^^s } y^ { /. ^ t^^'y z ; ^ ^^t^i.'^> ^r ^ ^^. S^t. ^.E 7, 4.. P^rr l 4^ ; ^,. ^^ ^F'.}_ js;r{^: t^f^:r ^^^. I ncr? nsistp rit k" it^ Rule 56 ( F). Al l of th ese r;` 3" ror> ` ontri.,b13 ter to the eninl of fair )rncp^ed^.na^: '^..o A^el ^.^~n-^, "ir^^ im ^. An'er>on, cind s#ir>ports ^ ^fi., S^^j"i^'^'^(^;^ Co.^r t ^"ccn^'^1.ng J^..1 1"s7?t"^:1`?i^. "'nt^' C^'4^^^"^.}?^iC^ on s^:"'fl:s, j ^. ^, t, ^h '' ^ ;^e r 3, t S Pr osition of Low No. IV: The Ohio State Courts erred and obtised their discretion by granting, and affirming the grant, of Apoellee, Stewart 1`i t l e Guaranty Comoony s Motion for Summary Jtjdgment; when there were genuine issues 6f material fact, and the issue of l iabi lity was bosed on the wrongful acts of the Appellee approvf ng the clerical error of another A^^ellee three times; and i^o iding themselves otit as the Principal, with ^rivity of contrc^ct; as well as vicariously liable for the acts c^f its agents. i^e r e, ^ r loe r r, ou t :'^ 12, r r ^ ^, d a n? ^hi.l ^ e d -t h e i C d i s rv,,_ '^'i? ^. o'? 1?,`^^,:^^"n n ' i nt. ^7, A..^ip 3 l eo Ste>'da "t Ti7: 9_et `' Plo+..'ioa'b for SOjmmor^f Jt.f^`C1r"im(''^'. t^';gt^, f ^f` (1`#^^ trt. M. of tlir? S o?'ti ~ re asons n^ obove, Si e,r'j {7 " t '.".' n^ no -,^` pi ggwioc`;i the fo1 l'" cj o 3"gt flt s, re'l t!er9 #tlsi ni.s the of1r"toni'd.ing ^I:"0^^'i^ Y 1 s>e!e fa^'^ ^ to i't" ef er5 ^ C ^ ^ioti on ; the,i o '}e i ri, Ie ns to ;~ tp"r _ t ';,, > ^ "^ p l o'':! ei" ^` ^.,,.! 1 k rt^^ ^' ^' r e?`:1 "^ ^^ g^' on^" '^"y i } ^ h;`f '^ ^ f rir", tra,,x ^ ^ f?r ^ r '1 ^ I- ^ f l '3 fo,.#.lef<j to al.l+'.^iys f"^,^'!ini^}c^.'~^ioi^; to c^?^i!!^ll'^'i^qe f#i^++c ^ f^c,"t ^ y^k^ undere Civil Rule i 56(F). See again, Plott V. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190 (6th Cir. 1995). "It3^ 2'^^over { S r^1 q f,^ 5;] n ^ T ^`-i. Fi,i f S 1, a,... ^ ^ ^.. ^^ ^ d, ^.. ^[ ^ ' ^ ^' ^, }; 3^ 2,r, f'' ^' t Ti^ ^. ^ as ^*,.? ; 7- ^',^r^r^ ",.,.r u ^i1!"fa,. i1 ^'.." g^y1!^.i1 nry ^.. s:,!j ^'.'i., t^.,ry '(^ f I ^:? i T'"^,t.+l ^f';c }. t. ) ^. x!'^ to '^t^,at an S > ^ /^..^. C I ^"^.(u ^ r':f? ' l.h `^^ ^^' ^^ ^'^ # ^.^'t ~a j L^f^^lisii i^'..(^ot thikf :'}e^1? itlpd to,^es^i"^ me"^t. ^,:.t `".'^ of lo}ry;. See Temple V. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St. 3d 317 (1977). ^ } ^t?4t ^ ^. ^ ^,.;;^^^ is ^^^st prop? em^^^ic ' ae,re, the lol:r^^ courts hojr:i,,q thrit Ste' ' fi? r t ^ itlw' cci11 nt; t ^7 ia `^ ^.71:? C3 ^'i dl.^" ^' r. " % `^f. v.!" ^, ^Ctl^, ',^ ^' ^.' i^`^ ". ^`, ^"i ^ ^:' ^.r ^.^.^ "J ^''P1 This ^ is r'e,v-.1' s,l o,? 1'.'- -rror h'., (" es. Cl v '^ te; 't `I!"'" opdc' 9ve{' f.? F l thrf' ei ` ^ ^ roe i3'1ct1;a i 3,^ `' o' ^:i 14

19 the?:;i'i "ep$"es=",nted business I E'IvoJ ces o> second mot +'^^".^'`^f.',.^i s.. They got 3.J1,^ldrot their services. They f e4.^inw'd thee funds. (-u4 the[ p.'jtec:!k.'rt can '.^e vi vorious1.y lio`:1i.^ for the iod ^ct:, of their ^^^^ts < Ryon V. Ambrosioso, 2008 Ohio 6645 (8th Dist., 2008). Honever, the =very wer.k ^'^t ^ '"zf?^,y ^?"^ z^. ; ^^ {^, a Y ^ r^i ;'^j t'l ^'' th c^. a ^.. by Ste ^,.,. 9;7'" '^'' i s ^ `^ Cou e E rt ^3 ^' i ;. {^. ^ A ^:..; ls t't C^ 9 ^^t be i E f t;.! y if th e i^ ^,-,`, ent is not,» if.1 ' A e, thh en no le L.a h.,l.e ty con he 1. mput ed to p{ in'u.l^al. Thus, ae^poe.i, loii:..,, cli,ims foil he! in. Yes, very wen`.e Plus, {.^i"sk` f.s t ^"7?^ ^ ^'. [e y ; ^ t if: A :l os ^q.{.. } '^ Z.,. ^, t. c t.! i,. if '^.S t,;. E i ( E"^ ^s^ ^ r3l ^t'^,i. :,;z Cs, `^.. t. ^ }f r /^^E ^ ^ i. ^ ^{ ^! ^{^ t^ icr a ^ 't ' ^'! i ^ i. ^ry 7 ti ^^ ^ al:j^',^ ^ ^ ^^ F.,^ F; "s f. e The record sup;'cts that they had a YtlOV to xppellnc^t wh,, ch wo^- breac hed. See Stock V. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St. 3d 207 (1988). RerfzymterR they al.s^ l ow tz^f e C" d 3 f1^ ^g! ^,1^^?,^ E t^.nt ' ;+f ^t' i..^.a.p ^^is^.,^1 t,.> r '^..o ^^c. ss 7.,^:ta.'F.^^:. ^ r:' '3 t fj t ^,j., o > ^a tf^:...^ l....^ ^'^' r^`i, ^^o^i'r ìs r,1f ^ line, there were too man`.t ^' '^ s '^, r ^'`..>f ;^1, te ^ `4C^ ^f^ ; ^.f^, s..,.at,.. '^3''^ :_C!, ^;,, '^, 1^^ C^.^ o S1..i ^oc" f",31 y j u dgment in fo' I o!" of S'fi ewt"f rt Tis lt;-',. Once ag!3 in, the {; x"? uri, of a+-w^ pe'? ls erred by,^,^.ivi n.^,^ woy too much deference t^.`^.. the trial court's ^^^tec.%i1 ncgti!:n,.^^ t[nd not ecilly looking ot the ricts:#ol facts presented by the `kppr'llont, This Decision must he reviewed. Th'. Aopell{7nt, Kim? Anderson, p9"oys this S'. ^ pr'; r"e Court C.? C +; e;""t t J1.! r1...`.; di!:.' tion (' i"i C' i" et{ i'?'r';( this (: r1;s e o(i the i'` merzts. Such o result is supported by the RecordS Rhet, a^^^ is^-^. WHEREFORE, CONCLUSION the Ap.^ellont, Kim L. Anderson, for iry1.l the obov o"' ^ ^'.^ ^ ^?.`7' ; ^. ^ti i.^ ^i s of ^.^;i'e^ y, r'.^ f o^3', ^. p: J`^"isdir^"K' '^ s'" o hear f ^ i.` `,^ ^ ^` :> ^`. t,'^.,^,,. '^^ c^; r^? '...`^'^; +! ^' ^. 3.`^ ` -^ ^.^ ec` f" C i S of the lower courts ond P' rd>.- f the submistion of ^ ^' ei" i't. briefs; and all other neccessary ond proper relief in r the nre 3 es, Respe^tf^al1 y Submitted, ' IN L. Al^O^ON, PR^ ^^ CCI ^^ ^ ^.1 ^c^^^i,''qh io

20 ^ ^.a IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH I APPELI..ATE DISTRICT Kim L. Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, U', V. No.13AP (C.P.C. No. i1cv-9o83) Preferred Title & Guaranty Agency, Inc. et al., (REGUI<AR CALENDAR) a. DefE:ndartts-Appellees. W D E C I S I O N Rendered on, Kim L. Anderson, pro se. DeSanto & 1t1"cNfchols, Debra J. De.San1o and David J. McNichols, for appellees Preferred Title & Guaranty Agency, ^ Inc. and Frank Farkas. 0 Sikora Law LLC, Nftchael J. Sikora, III, Richard 1: Cravera 0 and Joni S. Todd, for appellee Stewart Title Guaranty o Company. U O'GRADY, J. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Kim L. Anderson, appeals from a judgrnent of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his nrotion for sumznary judgment and granting the motions for suznmary judgment of defendants-appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Preferrcd Title & Guaranty Agency following reasons, we affirm. 1=-,_,md. Frank Farkas. For the w- - ^r DD

21 No. 13A.P BACK.GRC}UlVD (9[ 2} Appellant brought this action, pro se, against Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("Stewart Title"), Preferred Title & Guaranty Agency, Inc. ("Preferred Title"), Frank Farkas (collectively "appellees"), and Rebecca Barley.' According to the part%es, appellant was a facilitator who brought buyers and sellers together for three real estate transactions, which are at issue in this case. Preferred Title provided title, escrow, and closing services related to the transactions. Farkas, a vice president at Preferred Title, and Barley, an employee at Preferred Title, were involved. in the transactions. Stewart Title had a business relationship with Preferred Title, pursuarit to which it underwrote the title insurance policies issued by Preferred Title during the transactions. {13} Appellant claims Stewart Title, Preferred Title, Farkas, and Barley had a duty to disclose accurate information to lenders but, despite that duty, Barley listed appellant's business debts incorrectly as second nlortgages on HUD-i Settlement Statemezxts related to the sale of properties located at Kelton Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 432o6; 69 Dakota Avenue, Columbus, Ohio ; and 296 Olentarigy Ridge Place, Powell, Ohio 43o68. Farkas approved the paperwork prepared by Barley. Appellant also contends he was listed as a real estate broker in error. {14} The errors on the paper-cvork played a role in causing funds to flow inta appellant's possession that he was not legally entitled to receive, and he retained those funds. Consequently, appellant was indicted, tried before a jury, and convicted of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, identity fraud, theft, forgery, and money laundering. Appellant was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison and ordered to pay over $ z million in restitution. {y[ 5} Appellant does not dispute that his convictions are related to the sale of five properties, including the three at issue in this case. Appellant contends that appellees are civilly liable to him because Barley's errors on the HUD-i Settlement Statements caused him to become convicted, incarcerated, and subject to the restitution order. He argues that Preferred Title is liable to him as Barley and Farkas' employer, and Stewart Title is -kicarivusly liable to him due to its relationship with Preferred Title and underwriting the 1 Rebecca Barlev was never setved with process in the underlying lawsuit, nor did she enter an appearance or otherwise plead. She is, likewise, not a party to this appeal.

22 No. 13AP title insurance policies. Appellant's operative complaint is imprecise, but it inclucles allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress On November 26, 2012, appellant filed a motion for summ.ary judgment. He argued that there was no genuine dispute that Barley prepared the flawed HUD-r Settlement Statements, Farkas approved those documents, and the mistakes on those documents cause him to be prosecuted. Therefore, appellant contended the trial court should grant him judgment as a matter of law and award him $12 million in compensatory and punitive damages. {y[ 7} On December 10, 2012, Stewart Title filed a rnotion for summary judgment arguing that appellant did not allege any direct wrongdoing on its part, and appellant could not otherwise establish a viable theory of liability pertaining to Stewart Title. On January -15, 2013, Preferred Title and Farkas filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that they committed clerical errors and did not act with malice or knowingly commit fraud. Preferred Title and Farkas noted they relied on documents provided to them by appellant. Additionally, Preferred Title and Farkas argued that appellant's claims were barred. by application of the unclean hands doctrine, referencing appellant's criminal conduct and convictions. {y[ 8} On April 12, 2013, the trial court ruled on the three motions for summary judgment. The court denied appellant's motion and granted appellees' motions due to appellant's unclean hands, The court also found appellant's claims against Stewart Title, Preferred Title, Farkas, and Barley failed as a matter of law regardless of whether they were based on theories of direct or vicarious liability. The court concluded that "[appellant] accepted and retained the funds disbursed at the three closings and it was his acceptance and retention of those funds that led to his criminal convictions and incarceration." (R. 21o, Decision and Entry, 19.) Appellant has timely appealed the trial court's judgment. II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {9[ y} Appellant presents the following three assignments of error for our review:

23 No. 13AP FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its Discretion by Denying Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment; when there were no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff-Appellant was entitled to Summary Judgment; where the issue of liability was based on the wrongful acts of the Defendants incident to three Real Estate Transactions and the Paramount wrongful act was admitted to by one Defendarat and acknowledged by all the others. Further, more specifically, the Trial Court erred and abused its Discretion by not Granting Summary Judgment against Defendant Rebecca Barley, who under the facts conceded by all parties and the Trial Court; admitted she listed the Plaintiff s Btisiness Debt wrongly as a Second Mortgage on Three Real Estate Transactions HUD-i Settlement Statements. Again, under the facts, this act was committed by her and not Plaintiff. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The Trial Couz-t erred as a matter of law and abused its Discretion by Granting Defendants-Appellees Preferred Title &- Guaranty Agency, Inc. and Frank Farlcas's Motion for Summary Judgment; where, again, the issue of liability was based on the,,tirrongful acts of the Defendants incident to three Real Estate Transactions and the fatal act was done by one of the Defendants but argued away as a clerical error, repeated at least Three times and committed without malice or knowingly; and that they relied on documents provided by Plaintiff, who simply had presented invoices, not Second Mortgages, to said Defendants; and under these facts it was unreasonable to grant them Summary Judgment. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The Trial Court erred as a: matter of law and abused its Discretion by Granting Defendant-Appellee Stewart Title Guaranty Company's Motion for Strmmary Judgment; where the issue of liability was based on the wrongful acts of the Defendants incident to three Real Estate Transactions and the fatal act was done by one of the Defendants but argued away as a clerical error; but repeated three times, and Stewart Title was aware of Preferred's Acts and even approved them repeated as well as holding themselves olit as the Principal and had privity of contract to be held liable under contract law

mg Doc 1076 Filed 09/07/18 Entered 09/07/18 12:17:22 Main Document Pg 1 of 10

mg Doc 1076 Filed 09/07/18 Entered 09/07/18 12:17:22 Main Document Pg 1 of 10 Pg 1 of 10 M AR TIN LIP TON H E RB ER T M. W AC H T EL L P AU L VIZ C A R R ONDO, J R. TR E VO R S. N O RW I TZ BEN M. GE R M AN A AN D R EW J. N U S SB A U M 51 W E S T 52ND S T R E E T N E W Y O R K,

More information

AGENDA MEMORANDUM. Item #12. Meeting Date: September 16, 2014

AGENDA MEMORANDUM. Item #12. Meeting Date: September 16, 2014 Item #12 Meeting Date: September 16, 2014 AGENDA MEMORANDUM To: From: Title: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council Jason Reynolds, Current Planning Manager, Development Services Resolution No. 2014-83:

More information

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY AFSCME IOWA COUNCIL 61, JOHNATHON GOOD, RYAN DE VRIES TERRA KINNEY AND SUSAN BAKER Case No. Plaintiffs, v. PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

More information

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MEMORANDA (PPMs)

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MEMORANDA (PPMs) TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: PPM #: ALL COUNTY PERSONNEL VERDENIA C. BAKER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MEMORANDA (PPMs) CW-O-001 ====================================================================

More information

Case 2:18-cv JFC Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 35

Case 2:18-cv JFC Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 35 Case 2:18-cv-00532-JFC Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 35 Exhibit "A" Case 2:18-cv-00532-JFC Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 35 Case 2:18-cv-00532-JFC Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of

More information

Explanation of the Application Form

Explanation of the Application Form Explanation of the Application Form Code Explanation A. Details on the application A01A EU standard passport photograph, size 3.5 x 4.5 cm to 4 x 5 cm A01B Signature of applicant and/or legal representative

More information

State of Florida TASK FORCE ON CITIZEN SAFETY AND PROTECTION Comments. Completion of personal information is optional. Street

State of Florida TASK FORCE ON CITIZEN SAFETY AND PROTECTION Comments. Completion of personal information is optional. Street ~~ask Force on ~CITIZEN SAFETY "Jnd PROTECTION State of Florida TASK FORCE ON CITIZEN SAFETY AND PROTECTION Completion of personal information is optional. DATE: j /...- I 0 ' I z.. '. PLEASE PRINT (7.

More information

Franklin D. Roosevelt. Papers Pertaining to the. Campaign of 1924

Franklin D. Roosevelt. Papers Pertaining to the. Campaign of 1924 Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers Pertaining to the Campaign of 1924 Accession Numbers: Ms 41-64, Ms 68-5 The papers were presented to the Library in November of 1940 by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Literary property

More information

Boy Scout Troop 883 PLC Meeting Plan

Boy Scout Troop 883 PLC Meeting Plan Boy Scout Troop 883 PLC Meeting Plan Date: /13dr---7/24/1? Leader Activity Description Opening and Call to Order Roll Call and Reading of the Log : 1st A: N./. 2nd A: V Splody Bang: / \/' : V QM: Reading

More information

CIVIL COVER SHEET. Washoe County, Nevada Case No. (Assigned by Clerk s Office) Civil Cases. Negligence Premises Liability -SF (Slip/Fall)

CIVIL COVER SHEET. Washoe County, Nevada Case No. (Assigned by Clerk s Office) Civil Cases. Negligence Premises Liability -SF (Slip/Fall) I. Party Information CIVIL COVER SHEET Washoe County, Nevada Case No. (Assigned by Clerk s Office) Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner (name/address/phone): DOB: Attorney (name/address/phone): II. Nature of Controversy

More information

6^^^.^L ^'RI^^^^DU. ...:. ^ ^^ 6cm -su^.^aaka ^^ ^^ ^. ... ou 6 _!..^... W 1 ier,:::...: a... _...: ... ^.^.:...,...,,... 8 :.^ ...,^,

6^^^.^L ^'RI^^^^DU. ...:. ^ ^^ 6cm -su^.^aaka ^^ ^^ ^. ... ou 6 _!..^... W 1 ier,:::...: a... _...: ... ^.^.:...,...,,... 8 :.^ ...,^, ,, /,3,lnp y G f,'! 1,r %,r>r, F4 6L : fs ou 6 _! W 1 ier,::: : a r ;,,,,, - :, :: :,r, -- -, -, yi,, :_-- t; :: :,,, 8 : J3 _,,, _ : c,_ rs :- _: % ;,, _ :,,,_ :_: _,,,,, - a Avi ;,:,, _ : 6cm -suaaka,,

More information

APPLICATION LOCATIONS JUNE 2015

APPLICATION LOCATIONS JUNE 2015 APPLICATION LOCATIONS JUNE 2015 34 23 19 TTO OW WN N O O FF TT E EC CU UM MS SE E TOW N OF LAKESOR E 8 8 WA LKER RD Y LAND RD LD EN RD _ ^ OL 11 S/S 14th Concession Rd B-20-15 & A-17-15 13T CO NCE SSIO

More information

Uniform Wage Garnishment Act

Uniform Wage Garnishment Act Uniform Wage Garnishment Act Agenda What is it? Why do we need it? Major provisions Enactment 1 Who is the ULC? National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws Uniform Interstate Family Support

More information

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of Interest You Can t Be Everyone s Best Friend or Their Lawyer, Either Claude E. Ducloux Attorney At Law Board Certified Texas Board of Legal Specialization Civil Trial Law Civil Appellate Law

More information

Phases of File Management Where Used

Phases of File Management Where Used Case File Management Standards (rev. 10/08) 6.1: Component 39 (A) Circuit Court Case-Type Code List. The following case-type code list must be used in circuit court as provided in Component 1. The bracketed

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Huskonen v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 2008-Ohio-4652.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) KURT HUSKONEN, et al. C. A. No. 08CA009334 Appellants

More information

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 4309 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 4309 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 4309 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

X Tort: Motor vehicle negligence

X Tort: Motor vehicle negligence Calendar No.: NOTE OF ISSUE For use of clerk Index No.: 7107892015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS Name of Judge Assigned: Hon. Janice A. Taylor FELIX BUENDIA, NOTICE FOR TRIAL

More information

of Defendant Appellant Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction Mark B. Springer

of Defendant Appellant Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction Mark B. Springer en The Supreme Court of Ohio S a"f ^ ^ ^ ^^3 ^ ^r.. ^ J f,,.,1t State of Ohio, Appellee, App.No. C-130147 Trial No. B-8805912 Mark B. Springer, Appeliant, Vs. On appeal from the Hamilton County Court of

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/15/ :52 AM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/15/2017

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/15/ :52 AM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/15/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12152017 10:52 AM INDEX NO. 5099592014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12152017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12152017 10:52 AM INDEX TNDEX NO. No 5099592014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56

More information

RULE 3.8(g) AND (h):

RULE 3.8(g) AND (h): American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct RULE 3.8(g) AND (h): (g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence

More information

Corporations Act 2001

Corporations Act 2001 Corporations Act 2001 Act No. 50 of 2001 as amended This compilation was prepared on 28 October 2008 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 105 of 2008 Volume 3 includes: Table of Contents Chapters

More information

----- ~N.C. cw/ss 1/16/76 MEMORANDUM. TO: Mr. Justice Powell DATE: January 16, North Carolina Cases

----- ~N.C. cw/ss 1/16/76 MEMORANDUM. TO: Mr. Justice Powell DATE: January 16, North Carolina Cases cw/ss 1/16/76 MEMORANDUM \ TO: Mr. Justice Powell DATE: January 16, 1976 FROM: Chris North Carolina Cases I suggest that the cases involving convictions under the ~N.C. ~ ~ ~k pre-furman statute (as construed

More information

Promoting Second Chances: HR and Criminal Records

Promoting Second Chances: HR and Criminal Records AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN Adult arrests without charges; records with inaccuracies Only cases of mistaken identity or false accusations are expungeable No expungement or sealing permitted

More information

NASSAU COUNTY ALAM, 8,2002. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law was submitted on November. and Defendant s Memorandum was submitted on November

NASSAU COUNTY ALAM, 8,2002. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law was submitted on November. and Defendant s Memorandum was submitted on November -MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY HON. MERYL J. BERKOWITZ, Acting Justice BARBARETTA SINDACATO, INC. D/b/a LACUCINA ITALIANA and THOMAS D. MORAN, Plaintiff(s),

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00250-CV Alexandra Krot and American Homesites TX, LLC, Appellants v. Fidelity National Title Company, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS

More information

fcnm fcnm cover a wide range of issues, including, inter alia: Non-discrimination Promotion of effective equality

fcnm fcnm cover a wide range of issues, including, inter alia: Non-discrimination Promotion of effective equality Wh at i s t he F r ame wo w ork rk C o nv ve en f or th e Pr P rot ote ec ct tion io n of N at io i on n al Mi n nor or iiti t ie es s? Th e p pr r o v isio n s of the Framework veon cover a wide range

More information

California Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data Characteristics and Known Limitations Charges Criminal Justice Glossary

California Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data Characteristics and Known Limitations Charges Criminal Justice Glossary California Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Center APPENDICES TURN PAGE Data Characteristics and Known Limitations Charges Criminal Justice Glossary Links to: Preface PC 12025 (Concealed

More information

8C0 IL/ 5/._;/qmes tuay

8C0 IL/ 5/._;/qmes tuay ~PPOINTMENT OF CAMPAIGN TREASURER AND DESIGNATION OF CAMPAIGN DEPOSITORY FOR CANDIDATES (Section 106.021 (1 ), F.S.) (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) 05-18- 16 A1 0 : 38 I N NOTE: This form must be on file with

More information

the record of the Board of Canvassers filed in my office this 26 1 h

the record of the Board of Canvassers filed in my office this 26 1 h STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF CASSIA I, Joseph W. Larsen, County Clerk of said county and state, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true and complete copy of the abstract of votes for the candidates

More information

The Law Library: A Brief Guide

The Law Library: A Brief Guide The Law Library: A Brief Guide I. INTRODUCTION Welcome to the Chase Law Library! Law books may at first appear intimidating, but you will gradually find them logical and easy to use. The Reference Staff

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Huntington Natl. Bank v. Coffman, 2014-Ohio-3743.] Huntington National Bank, : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 14AP-231 (C.P.C. No. 12CV010165)

More information

A contentious election: How the aftermath is impacting education

A contentious election: How the aftermath is impacting education Amy L Dagley, Ph.D. University of Alabama Birmingham Brittany Larkin, Ph.D. Auburn University ELA Annual Conference, San Diego, 2017 A contentious election: How the aftermath is impacting education Each

More information

GROVE CITY COLLEGE V. BELL Argued 11/29/83

GROVE CITY COLLEGE V. BELL Argued 11/29/83 82-792 GROVE CITY COLLEGE V. BELL Argued 11/29/83 /.~. J,..; - ~. ~ ~(P~I-r)(4d~i4f ~ Sh J ~ ~ as c.~~ ~41.... 4' e~ r ~ ~ ~rr )'- ~;......- ~.""' ~ '~ ~ ~- ~~,h,t, """'~ ''~ SVsz ;Pu.. ~~.-.. t.. ~- ~

More information

Chart #5 Consideration of Criminal Record in Licensing and Employment CHART #5 CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN LICENSING AND EMPLOYMENT

Chart #5 Consideration of Criminal Record in Licensing and Employment CHART #5 CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN LICENSING AND EMPLOYMENT CHART #5 CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN LICENSING AND EMPLOYMENT State AL licensing, public and private (including negligent hiring) licensing and public licensing only public only Civil rights restored

More information

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. Washington and Lee University School of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons Supreme Court Case Files Powell Papers 10-1979 Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the

More information

WEBSITE CASE LIST JMP

WEBSITE CASE LIST JMP WEBSITE CASE LIST JMP 1. People v. AC : Charges Assault 3 rd As a result of Motion s filed by defense counsel the Judge DISMISSED both Counts of Assault 3rd Degree. 2. People v SO: Charged DWI Result defense

More information

RIDE Program Overview

RIDE Program Overview RIDE Program Overview Table of Contents 1 Program Overview and the E-Verify Process 2 RIDE by the Numbers 3 Filling a Critical Gap and a Glance at Identity Fraud 4 Fact and Fiction? 5 Benefits of Working

More information

VVM's G.R. KARE COLLEGE OF LAW, MARGAO-GOA LAW OF TORTS. Duration : 3 hours Total Marks = 75

VVM's G.R. KARE COLLEGE OF LAW, MARGAO-GOA LAW OF TORTS. Duration : 3 hours Total Marks = 75 VVM's G.R. KARE COLLEGE OF LAW, MARGAO-GOA B.A.LL.B. SEMESTER -II EXAMINATION, OCTOBER 2016 Duration : 3 hours Total Marks = 75 Instructions: (i) Answer ANY EIGHT Questions from Q. No. 1 to 12 (8X8 = 64)

More information

Breakdown of the Types of Specific Criminal Convictions Associated with Criminal Aliens Placed in a Non-Custodial Setting in Fiscal Year 2015

Breakdown of the Types of Specific Criminal Convictions Associated with Criminal Aliens Placed in a Non-Custodial Setting in Fiscal Year 2015 Breakdown the Types Specific Criminal Associated with Criminal Placed in a Non-Custodial Setting in Fiscal Year 2015 The following table below provides a breakdown the types specific criminal convictions

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/ :48 AM INDEX NO /2016

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/ :48 AM INDEX NO /2016 F ILED KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/2 6/2018 02 29 PM For use of Clerk INDEX NO 522578/16 STEPHANIE R JEROME, NOTE OF ISSUE Justice BOUBACAR DIALLO, GAOUSSOU KOUREICHI, SUSAN H JEROME and SAFIYA D JEROME, Defendants

More information

Control Number : Item Number : 103. Addendum StartPage : 0

Control Number : Item Number : 103. Addendum StartPage : 0 Control Number : 45524 Item Number : 103 Addendum StartPage : 0 SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-16-2520 PUC DOCKET NO. 45524 APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN BEFO^:`1`l^i^ STATE 1OI^CE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY FOR OF,,,,

More information

Publication Title: Case Files of Applications from Former Confederates for Presidential Pardons ("Amnesty Papers"),

Publication Title: Case Files of Applications from Former Confederates for Presidential Pardons (Amnesty Papers), Publication Number: M-1003 Publication Title: Case Files of Applications from Former Confederates for Presidential Pardons ("Amnesty Papers"), 1865-1867 Date Published: 1977 CASE FILES OF APPLICATIONS

More information

. I..i'ML OCT IZ CLERK OF GOURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant

. I..i'ML OCT IZ CLERK OF GOURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant . I..i'ML IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 12-1643 Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate

More information

Robert Mumma, II v. High Spec Inc

Robert Mumma, II v. High Spec Inc 2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-5-2010 Robert Mumma, II v. High Spec Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-4667 Follow

More information

- L iq uor to in to xica ted cus tomers - R e mo va l o f l iq u o r fr o m p r e mis e s

- L iq uor to in to xica ted cus tomers - R e mo va l o f l iq u o r fr o m p r e mis e s Legislation Excerpts This appendix contains excerpts from the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act (GLA), Alberta Gaming and Liquor Regulation (GLR), and the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission Licensee Handbook,

More information

Chapter 1: Duties of Local Lodge Officers

Chapter 1: Duties of Local Lodge Officers Chapter 1: Duties of Local Lodge Officers This first section of the guide deals with the main duties of local lodge officers as set forth in the IAM Constitution. The IAM Constitution designates the president,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2013-Ohio-3441.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon.

More information

ou1 PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM October 12, 1979 Conf. List 1, Sheet 1 Appeal to DC ED VA. (Merhige, Bryan [CJ]) (Warringer, concurring and dissenting)

ou1 PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM October 12, 1979 Conf. List 1, Sheet 1 Appeal to DC ED VA. (Merhige, Bryan [CJ]) (Warringer, concurring and dissenting) ou1 October 12, 1979 Conf. List 1, Sheet 1 PRELMNARY MEMORANDUM No. 79-198 Supreme Court of VA. Appeal to DC ED VA. (Merhige, Bryan [CJ]) (Warringer, concurring and dissenting) v. Consumers Union of U.S.,

More information

~M~c. f. tl A Commissioner, etc. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN. Todd Coles Deputy City Clerk, City of Vaughan A Commissioner. etc.

~M~c. f. tl A Commissioner, etc. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN. Todd Coles Deputy City Clerk, City of Vaughan A Commissioner. etc. NULOOK DEVELOPMENTS NC. THE CORPORATON OF THE CTY OF VAUGHAN N THE MATTER OF Section 34, Subsections (18) and (19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, BARBARA A. MCEWAN, of the City of Toronto, make

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY DB MIDWEST, LLC, CASE NUMBER O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY DB MIDWEST, LLC, CASE NUMBER O P I N I O N [Cite as DB Midwest, L.L.C. v. Pataskala Sixteen, L.L.C., 2008-Ohio-6750.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY DB MIDWEST, LLC, CASE NUMBER 8-08-18 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, -and- O P I N

More information

Level 2 Offenses. Cheating/Plagarism (CT) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO)

Level 2 Offenses. Cheating/Plagarism (CT) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO) Student Conference (CO) Level 1 Offenses Computer Mischief (CV1) (Minor) Warning (WI) >>>>>>> 45 Min. Detention (IS1) Half Day ISS (HD) ISS Full Day (IS) Dress Code Violation (DC) Warning (WI) (Step 0, Dress Code Letter sent

More information

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed.

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed. AL ALABAMA Ala. Code 10-2B-15.02 (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A-2-15.02.] No monetary penalties listed. May invalidate in-state contracts made by unqualified foreign corporations.

More information

RIDE Program Overview

RIDE Program Overview RIDE Program Overview Region IV Annual Conference May 2017 Table of Contents 1 2 3 Program Overview and the E-Verify Process Fact and Fiction Filling a Critical Gap and a Glance at Identity Fraud? 4 RIDE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Jain v. Omni Publishing, Inc., 2009-Ohio-5221.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92121 MOHAN JAIN DBA BUSINESS PUBLISHING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

FU=- Iq,t"".r;;;:;J h ~e anre~ e JCCe tohu -.FJ c«t- ~lj 1-(yf-(u~Jlt4/i,

FU=- Iq,t.r;;;:;J h ~e anre~ e JCCe tohu -.FJ c«t- ~lj 1-(yf-(u~Jlt4/i, - -- ~---'-------- ~f(;rj1/ a.dtj/ij~~) fa the.. ll7fp",te-z /tj-;!d~r;d.,,( rl,e... (2.) / fi -1! te. 1,6., I/ f'1//''jt'e'l) f.tcr,..., o~'z.!3'206iel... j w/,rc4 r V/.( y I /Pe a,:,{c!4eff'ej, /.,.:i

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Tarquinio v. Equity Trust Co., 2007-Ohio-3305.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) FRANK TARQUINIO, et al. C. A. No. 06CA008913 Appellants

More information

Mandated Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PMPs) Map

Mandated Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PMPs) Map Mandated Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PMPs) Map Research Current as of January 2, 2018. This project was supported by Grant No. G1799ONDCP03A, awarded by the Office of National Drug Control

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST ) ) - and

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST ) ) - and ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-16-11409-00CL THE-HONOURABLE ) TUESDAY, THE 2nd MR. JUSTICE NEWBOULD ) ) DAY OF MAY, 2017 BETWEEN: CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY [Cite as Discover Bank v. Combs, 2012-Ohio-3150.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY DISCOVER BANK, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No: 11CA25 : v. : : DECISION AND

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/ :49 PM INDEX NO. 3189/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2018

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/ :49 PM INDEX NO. 3189/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2018 FILED KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2018 0449 PM INDEX NO. 3189/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF 03/27/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

WO 2007/ A3 PCT. (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau

WO 2007/ A3 PCT. (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (43) International Publication Date (10) International

More information

294 f t. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

294 f t. JUDICIAL DISTRICT Rpr 03 02 05:2810 ~'.. 2 ~o. 00-00619 THE LAW OFFICES OF G. DA vm WESTFALL, P.c. v, CDO BIRNBA LM IN TlIE DISTRICT COURT 294 f t. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTED JI.:RY QUESTIO~S QUESTIO~ NO.1:

More information

From Article at GetOutOfDebt.org

From Article at GetOutOfDebt.org Case 5:11-cv-00988-C Document 1 Filed 09/06/1 1 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1)HAROLD M I L H ISLER, husband, and ( 2)ELIZABETH MILH I SLER, wife, individually

More information

The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database

The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database The Burger Court pinion Writing Database Navarro Savings Association v. Lee 446 U.S. 458 (198) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. Louis Forrest

More information

Constitution in a Nutshell NAME. Per

Constitution in a Nutshell NAME. Per Constitution in a Nutshell NAME Per Preamble We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote

More information

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas ,U~t. , r---..ft_. timtcd. ~tatr.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas   ,U~t. , r---..ft_. timtcd. ~tatr. ', r---ft_ Q l BOB 00LE I a KANSAS timtcd,ut \ r f'l - tatrs enatc r TAND ING COM M 1n S AGRICULTU RE NU TRITI ON ANO FORESTRY FINANCE RULES WASHINGTON DC 20510 Febr uary 1, 1985 Mr Larr y Allis on Arch

More information

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON BY-LAW Number. A By-law to authorize the execution of a Cessation of Charge.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON BY-LAW Number. A By-law to authorize the execution of a Cessation of Charge. THE CORPORATON OF THE CTY OF BRAMPTON BYLAW 22876 Number A Bylaw to authorize the execution of a Cessation of Charge. WHEREAS it is deemed necessary to enter into and execute a Cessation of Charge; NOW

More information

Admitting Foreign Trained Lawyers. National Conference of Bar Examiners Washington, D.C., April 15, 2016

Admitting Foreign Trained Lawyers. National Conference of Bar Examiners Washington, D.C., April 15, 2016 Admitting Foreign Trained Lawyers National Conference of Bar Examiners Washington, D.C., April 15, 2016 Professor Laurel S. Terry Carlisle, Pennsylvania LTerry@psu.edu Overview of Remarks Why this issue

More information

Oklahoma City Court Calendar. Oil and Gas Initial/ Continued Hearing Docket. Legal Location

Oklahoma City Court Calendar. Oil and Gas Initial/ Continued Hearing Docket. Legal Location ~riday -:r '. f oc-'ttl {\\. - \(\ ~ \'. {'I--- ~ ~ ~ ce--r-~ f. CD 201700164 ----- CHESAPEAKE OPERA TING, LLC CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC Initial/ Continued Hearing Docket Location Cont. Room Time ~ C.A~L

More information

Graduation and Retention Rates of Nonresidents by State

Graduation and Retention Rates of Nonresidents by State Graduation and Retention Rates of Nonresidents by State March 2011 Highlights: California, Illinois, and Texas are the states with the largest numbers of nonresidents. Students from Ohio and Wyoming persist

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Hull v. Charter One Bank, 2013-Ohio-2101.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99308 DOROTHY L. HULL, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

RULE 1.1: COMPETENCE. As of January 23, American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee

RULE 1.1: COMPETENCE. As of January 23, American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct RULE 1.1: COMPETENCE A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

More information

HENDRY C J7 RECEIVED. 3 _lt OCT Z". GO -< C!T> * * P r"

HENDRY C J7 RECEIVED. 3 _lt OCT Z. GO -< C!T> * * P r HENDRY C J7 RECEIVED OCT 0 4 2010 of GO -< s 3 _lt a C!T> * * P r" Z". Of V t*lk

More information

APR CLERK OF COURT REIVIE COURT OF OHIO. APR Lr^^^ ^^* ^a^.:,e^ ^LIMItML coufii JF onio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

APR CLERK OF COURT REIVIE COURT OF OHIO. APR Lr^^^ ^^* ^a^.:,e^ ^LIMItML coufii JF onio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 14 ^^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, V. Appellee, On appeal from the Clermont County Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District Supreme Court No. 2013-0540 JAMIE LEE NAEGELE, Court of Appeals

More information

Online Appendix. Table A1. Guidelines Sentencing Chart. Notes: Recommended sentence lengths in months.

Online Appendix. Table A1. Guidelines Sentencing Chart. Notes: Recommended sentence lengths in months. Online Appendix Table A1. Guidelines Sentencing Chart Notes: Recommended sentence lengths in months. Table A2. Selection into Sentencing Stage (1) (2) (3) Guilty Plea Dropped Charge Deferred Prosecution

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 2, 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 2, 2005 [Cite as Roy Schrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2005-Ohio-3938.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Roy Schrock, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 05AP-82 v. : (C.P.C. No. 04CVH05-5439)

More information

Appellate Briefs of the Future

Appellate Briefs of the Future Appellate Briefs of the Future Blake Hawthorne Don Cruse IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 44444444444444444444 Misc. Docket No. 10-9065 44444444444444444444 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

Constitutional Law: Arizona Gun Rights

Constitutional Law: Arizona Gun Rights Constitutional Law: Arizona Gun Rights Presented by: Attorney Howard Dworman AttorneysForFreedom.com 3185 S. Price Road, Chandler, Arizona 85248 480-755- 7110 Contact@AttorneysForFreedom.com Exper i en

More information

Cea v Matthew 2018 NY Slip Op 33249(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Lisa A.

Cea v Matthew 2018 NY Slip Op 33249(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Lisa A. Cea v Matthew 2018 NY Slip Op 33249(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160558/2016 Judge: Lisa A. Sokoloff Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op

More information

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES 218 STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES State Citation PERMITS PERPETUAL TRUSTS Alaska Alaska Stat. 34.27.051, 34.27.100 Delaware 25 Del. C. 503 District of Columbia D.C.

More information

RULE 1.16: DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION

RULE 1.16: DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct RULE 1.16: DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION (a) Except as stated in paragraph

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101194 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. T.M. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

More information

oi1v7 Case No. 14-0^ And IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2014 State Ex Rel. Javier Humberto, Relator, ORIGINAL ACTION

oi1v7 Case No. 14-0^ And IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2014 State Ex Rel. Javier Humberto, Relator, ORIGINAL ACTION P% ^%ar2isj^^ State Ex Rel. Javier Humberto, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2014 oi1v7 Case No. 14-0^ -vs- Relator, ORIGINAL ACTION Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Respondents. Court of Common Pleas

More information

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS

More information

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES 122 STATE STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES CITATION Alabama Ala. Code 19-3B-101 19-3B-1305 Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. 28-73-101 28-73-1106 District of Columbia

More information

Scopes *only applicable for Hapag-Lloyd called ports Valid to: Until further notice

Scopes *only applicable for Hapag-Lloyd called ports Valid to: Until further notice Scopes Europe Scopes *only applicable for Hapag-Lloyd called ports Valid to: Until further notice North Europe North Europe* * Country Code Name Exceptions Country Code Name Exceptions BE Belgium DK Denmark

More information

Case 0:17-cr BB Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:17-cr BB Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:17-cr-60022-BB Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/23/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 17-60022-CR-BLOOM UNITED STATES O F AM ERICA V. ESTEBAN

More information

RULE 4.2: COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

RULE 4.2: COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct RULE 4.2: COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL In representing a client,

More information

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION Case 4:11-cv-00417-MHS -ALM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 249 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION ALISE MALIKYAR V. CASE NO. 4:11-CV-417 Judge Schneider/

More information

1/30/16. Fee Shifting Chart. Week 3 UTPA PREVAILING PARTY CONSUMER LAW STATUTORY AUTHORITY AMERICAN RULE

1/30/16. Fee Shifting Chart. Week 3 UTPA PREVAILING PARTY CONSUMER LAW STATUTORY AUTHORITY AMERICAN RULE Fee Shifting Chart CONSUMER LAW STATUTORY AUTHORITY AMERICAN RULE PREVAILING PLAINTIFF UTPA ORS 646.638(3) FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681o(a)(2) FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) TCPA 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) PREVAILING PARTY

More information

2. Civil Procedure - Motions -

2. Civil Procedure - Motions - Francisco M. DIAZ, et at V5. Ramon L.G. DIAZ The strongest ground for reconsideration of a motion is that the court overlooked controlling authority which. if considered, reasonably might have altered

More information

An Ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Des

An Ordinance entitled, AN ORDINANCE to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Des Roll Call Number Agenda Item Number 3> Date October 8, 218 An Ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, 2, apted by Ordinance No. 13,827, passed June

More information

FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL CONTRACT. Between DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA. And CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA

FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL CONTRACT. Between DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA. And CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA AYYKUVED AYK1L 1/, ZU14 11r;M WZa BOCC FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL CONTRACT Between DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA And CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Douglas County is a political subdivision

More information

UNIT I LESSONS FROM THE PAST

UNIT I LESSONS FROM THE PAST UNIT I LESSONS FROM THE PAST THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY -DAVID CRABTREE The word history is derived f o the G eek o d isto ia, ea i g e ui, so the ea i g of History can be an enquiry into the past. In this

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY APPEARANCES:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY APPEARANCES: [Cite as JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Fallon, 2014-Ohio-525.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

What the Supreme Court Has Done

What the Supreme Court Has Done What the Supreme Court Has Done Daimler v. Bauman No general ju risdiction ove r corporate defendants except in the ir p rin cip a l place of business or state of incorporation Walden v. Fiore Sp e cific

More information

AP Comparative Government and Politics

AP Comparative Government and Politics 2018 AP Comparative Government and Politics Sample Student Responses and Scoring Commentary Inside: Free Response Question 1 RR Scoring Guideline RR Student Samples RR Scoring Commentary College Board,

More information

Bahrain Center for Human Rights Bahrain Center For Human Rights

Bahrain Center for Human Rights Bahrain Center For Human Rights Bahrain Center for Human Rights www.bahrainrights.org +45538 931 33 @BahrainRights @BahrainRights Bahrain Center For Human Rights MAY 2018 This report, by Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), highlights

More information