Court Filings

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision denying the father’s motion to modify parental rights and granting in part the mother’s modification requests. The dispute involved a 2016 parenting agreement naming mother residential custodian and the child’s wishes to live with father and play football at a different high school. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to justify changing custody to father but modified certain logistical terms (travel notice, single phone, sharing activity costs) as in the child’s best interest. The court also properly handled the guardian ad litem (GAL) report and fee requests.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Apex Security Group, Inc. in a negligence suit by pro se plaintiff Joshua Bradley, Sr., who was punched at a Cleveland Browns game. The court concluded Apex did not owe Bradley a duty to prevent the unforeseeable assault under the contract and Ohio law governing private security duties, and Bradley failed to show a genuine issue of material fact. The court also rejected Bradley’s procedural and bias claims, found no abuse in evidence rulings or refusal to grant default judgment, and affirmed the judgment for Apex.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Warren D. Bartos’s convictions and sentence after he pled guilty to trespass in a habitation, possession of a fentanyl-related compound, aggravated possession of methamphetamine, and resisting arrest. The trial court accepted Bartos’s guilty pleas after a proper on-the-record colloquy and written plea form, and imposed the parties’ joint recommendation of one year of community control. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief saying no non-frivolous issues exist; the appeals court independently reviewed the record, found the plea and sentence lawful, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh District’s judgment holding that a 1953 deed reservation of “all the coal below the horizon of the No. 8 coal . . . and other minerals, with the right to mine and remove such coal or other minerals of any vein” did not reserve rights to oil and gas. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the surface owner (Faith Ranch) and the court of appeals affirmed based on extrinsic evidence; the Supreme Court agreed the outcome was correct but held the deed was unambiguous on its face. The Court explained that the reservation’s words (mine/mining, vein, and related phrasing) show an intent to reserve solid, mineable minerals like coal, not migratory oil and gas.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s order enforcing a settlement between Randy Dean and Pekin Insurance. Dean had sued for underinsured motorist benefits; his former attorney demanded $185,000 and Pekin accepted. Pekin sent settlement documents and a check, but Dean refused to sign. After a hearing with testimony and an email exhibit, the trial court found a valid settlement existed, that Dean’s counsel had authority to settle above $175,000, and that Dean failed to prove incompetence or duress. The appellate court found sufficient evidence supported those findings and affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Highland County Juvenile Court’s decision denying Derrick Beverly’s objections to an administrative order terminating his child support obligation after the child reached majority. Beverly argued the original 2007 support order was void due to fraudulent or misidentified genetic testing, coercion, lack of notice, and other constitutional defects. The appellate court found Beverly failed to timely object to the original administrative orders and that the juvenile court held multiple hearings and considered his submissions. Because Beverly did not show reversible error or lack of opportunity to be heard, the appeals court affirmed.

Kent Elastomer sought a refund of its 2018 workers’ compensation premium under the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s group-retrospective-rating program. The bureau denied the request because it had already issued a one-time COVID-19 dividend equal to 100% of each employer’s 2018 premium. The Tenth District issued a limited writ compelling the bureau to administer the group-retro program calculations for the 2018 policy year. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the bureau must follow the administrative rule governing the group-retro program and could not suspend those duties merely by issuing the dividend.