Court Filings

The Court of Appeal affirmed a postjudgment order in a divorce case that awarded the wife $12,500 in attorney’s fees (rather than about $49,000 she sought) after she prevailed on a dispute over the family home. The trial court reduced the requested fees based on the parties’ limited finances, overlitigation, and the reasonableness of the fees. The appellate court held the family law court did not err: when a marital settlement agreement contains a prevailing-party fee clause, the trial court may still consider Family Code factors (including ability to pay) in fixing the amount of fees, and it did not abuse its discretion here.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant John A. Marre in a foreclosure/lien dispute brought by plaintiff John D. Allen. Allen claimed Marre agreed to pay him $365,000 and filed a UCC financing statement and lien when payment was not made. Marre submitted an affidavit and exhibits showing there was no enforceable contract or security interest, and Allen did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed and Marre was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendant Terence Woods’s motion to suppress a firearm found in his apartment after officers entered without a warrant. The appellate court held that, while Woods’s actions could reasonably be viewed as implied consent for officers to enter the apartment, the officers’ subsequent warrantless protective sweep of the bedroom where the gun was seen exceeded what was justified under the Fourth Amendment. Because the State failed to prove the protective sweep fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, the firearm must be suppressed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Derrick Warren’s convictions for four counts of rape and the trial court’s designation of him as a sexually-violent predator. Warren was tried for a 2012 attack on A.L.; a jury convicted him on the rape counts after hearing the victim’s testimony and DNA evidence linking Warren to semen and hairs collected in 2012. The court rejected Warren’s challenges to sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and upheld the sexually-violent-predator finding based on his pattern of sexually-motivated offenses, including later related convictions in 2013 and 2019.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Deon Slaughter’s convictions after a jury trial for third-degree felony strangulation and domestic violence. The court reviewed three assignments of error: objections to a police detective’s lay-opinion testimony about strangulation, admission of the victim’s testimony that another case against Slaughter was dismissed hours earlier, and a claim that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court held the detective’s testimony admissible under Evid.R. 701, found the dismissed-case testimony part of the immediate background and relevant under Evid.R. 404(B), and concluded the jury’s verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Marvin Rachells’s conviction for aggravated murder and related offenses after a jury trial. Rachells challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, a late discovery disclosure of cell-phone mapping, and his lawyers’ failure to request a continuance. The court found overwhelming circumstantial and direct evidence tying Rachells to the crime (vehicle and store video, clothing, DNA in the suspect vehicle, and the murder weapon in his safe), held the late disclosure was inadvertent and not prejudicial, and concluded defense counsel’s alleged omission did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Taze Lawrence’s convictions and sentences after he pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated robbery with three-year firearm specifications. The court rejected two challenges: (1) that the plea was invalid because the trial judge misstated which fines applied and failed to fully advise on fines, and (2) that the sentencing court failed to give full notifications required by the Reagan Tokes Law. The court found no prejudice from the partial advisements because no fines were imposed and the Reagan Tokes advisements could not practically affect Lawrence’s concurrent life sentence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Stetson Franklin’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of his vehicle after a traffic stop. Officers stopped Franklin for speeding, observed a loaded magazine in the center console, learned he was prohibited from possessing firearms, and summoned a drug dog. After Franklin was removed from the car, officers performed a protective sweep of the passenger compartment and discovered a loaded firearm. The court held the sweep reasonable given officer safety concerns and that the canine sniff did not unreasonably extend the stop.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Christopher Etheridge’s 2025 petition for postconviction relief. Etheridge, sentenced in 2007 to life with parole eligibility after 28 years for aggravated murder and felonious assault following a guilty plea, argued the court failed to consider his youth at sentencing. The appeals court held his petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21 because the direct-appeal transcripts were filed in 2008 and the 365-day filing window closed in 2009. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider Etheridge’s claim based on Ohio cases and therefore properly denied relief without findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Datwan Hall’s conviction for domestic violence after a bench trial in South Euclid Municipal Court. The court held Hall was not entitled to claim self-defense because he uninvitedly entered the victim’s apartment, provoked the encounter by pushing past her and taking her phone, and thus created the situation that led to the altercation. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a written notice of self-defense because asserting that defense would have been futile. Finally, the court concluded the State produced sufficient evidence, including testimony and injury photographs, to support the conviction.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of MAZCleveland and third-party defendant Steven Morris’s renewed motion for sanctions against defendant Sherry Hall under Ohio Rev. Code 2323.51. The appellants sought sanctions claiming Hall’s claims were frivolous and filed to harass, but the trial court determined the renewed motion merely restated previously-decided claims resolved by an agreed judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion: winning on the merits does not by itself prove frivolousness, the statutory standard requires egregious conduct, and the trial court had sufficient familiarity with the prior proceedings to deny a hearing.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against defendant-appellant Armand DiNardo in a dispute over lead-hazard remediation costs following Lofty Holding’s purchase of real property. Lofty served DiNardo by certified mail (returned unclaimed) and then by ordinary mail to a Kenwood Drive address; the clerk’s docket reflected ordinary-mail service and no return showing failure. The trial court held hearings and afforded DiNardo multiple chances to respond; DiNardo failed to appear or rebut service with convincing evidence. The appeals court held service was proper and the default judgment was valid.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision awarding legal custody and residence of minor S.B. to her mother. Father, appearing pro se, had sought shared parenting and custody but the trial court and guardian ad litem concluded the parents could not communicate effectively or set aside personal disputes for the child’s benefit. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining shared parenting was not feasible and in designating Mother as the residential parent after considering statutory best-interest factors and trial testimony.

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 Appellate Division affirmed Eric T. Seddens's convictions for aggravated manslaughter, unlawful possession of a weapon, and automobile theft. The main issue was whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of an aggravated assault Seddens committed against the same victim in 2018 under Rule 404(b) to prove motive and identity for the 2020 killing. The court held the prior assault was highly probative of motive (retaliation after his 2018 prosecution and imprisonment) and probative of identity (multiple shared characteristics of the two attacks). The trial court properly balanced prejudice against probative value, gave limiting instructions, and did not need to further sanitize the evidence.

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.

Mallory Harcourt sued Tesla after her toddler climbed into her newly purchased Model X, started it, and the vehicle struck her. She proceeded only on a strict product liability design-defect theory using the consumer expectations test. After Harcourt rested, the trial court granted Tesla's motion for nonsuit, concluding ordinary consumers could not form minimum safety expectations about how the Model X would perform in the unusual scenario of a toddler starting the car, particularly given the vehicle's complex, nonstandard systems. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the consumer expectations test inapplicable and noting Harcourt waived the alternative risk-benefit theory.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of San Rafael in a lawsuit by 16-year-old Kaylin Pagan, a passenger injured when her friend’s car hydroplaned and went down an embankment. Pagan sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property, alleging failures to warn of a sharp wet curve and lack of barriers. The trial court found the roadway’s wet condition and resulting hazard were open and obvious as a matter of law, and Pagan’s later expert theory about a defective pavement surface was not pleaded and relied on inadmissible or unsupported expert opinion. The appellate court agreed and affirmed judgment for the City.