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

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-07-9083 MEMORANI?UM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIOU OF APPELLANT KIM ^.^.`. ANDERSON KIM L. ANDERSON CCI #Ap^ 595-137 P. l,t. BOX 5500 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 45601 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 43206 MICHAEL J. SIKORA, III SIKORA LAW LU^ 88 W. MAIN STREET COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, PREFERRED TITTE 9 GtBARNTY AGENCY, INC. ^ FRANK FARKAS flio 1NSFL FOR APPEL LEE, STEWART TITLE G11ARMATY COMPANY

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 0 0 4 tl Y. 6. O 8 6 6 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)

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, 2014. ( ii )

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 #A595-137 P, ^ ^ BOX 5500 CHILLICOTHE, OHIO 45601 PRO SE ti^i^

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, 2014. 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

^ 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 297, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ ^'^^^ ^^{^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

^ 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

^ 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

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^^.

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

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 ^ 1: @p 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

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 0595-137 ^^ ^ ^.1 ^c^^^i,''qh io 45601 15

^ ^.a IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH I APPELI..ATE DISTRICT Kim L. Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, U', V. No.13AP-385 00 (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, 2014 0 0 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

No. 13A.P-385 9 1. 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 873-875 Kelton Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 432o6; 69 Dakota Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 432221; 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.

No. 13AP-385 3 title insurance policies. Appellant's operative complaint is imprecise, but it inclucles allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 11161 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:

No. 13AP-385 4 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