text:
    BEAVERCREEK TOWNE STATION, L.L.C., et al., Appellants, v. GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.
    No. 2016-1713
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted July 17, 2018 Decided October 25, 2018
    The Gibbs Firm, L.P.A., Ryan J. Gibbs, Cincinnati, and Geoffrey N. Byrne, for appellant Beavercreek Towne Station, L.L.C.
    Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Columbus, Karen H. Bauernschmidt, Cleveland, Nicholas M.J. Ray, and Steven L. Smiseck, Columbus, for appellants.
    Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Dublin, and Kimberly G. Allison, for appellee Beavercreek City School District Board of Education.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} At issue in this property-tax appeal is the 2014 tax valuation of a shopping center consisting of five separate real-estate parcels. The auditor had assigned an aggregate value to the parcels of $22,233,850 as of the tax-lien date, January 1, 2014. In October 2014, the center was sold as part of a "portfolio sale" along with other properties. A single conveyance-fee statement was filed for the five parcels allocating $47,479,830 to those parcels from the total amount paid under the sale agreement. Appellee Beavercreek City School District Board of Education ("school board") filed a valuation complaint, and at the school board's instigation, both appellee Greene County Board of Revision ("BOR") and the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") valued the individual parcels by reference to the aggregate price of $47,479,830. But the two boards differed in how they allocated the total to each of the five parcels.

{¶ 2} Appellant property owner, Beavercreek Towne Station, L.L.C., and one of its tenants, appellant Kohl's Illinois, Inc. (Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.), argue that because the properties were subject to leases, the sale price did not reflect what the buyers in the market would pay for the unencumbered real estate. Moreover, Beavercreek contends that the appraisals presented at the BTA show that the sale price does not reflect the property's unencumbered value as required by amended R.C. 5713.03. On appeal, Beavercreek argues that the BTA's failure to give proper consideration to the appraisal evidence calls for vacating its decision and remanding the cause on the recent authority of Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, and Bronx Park S. III Lancaster, L.L.C. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision , 153 Ohio St.3d 550, 2018-Ohio-1589, 108 N.E.3d 1079. Additionally, Beavercreek and Kohl's contend that the BTA erred by excluding Kohl's as a party and excluding the appraisal evidence concerning the value of the Kohl's parcel.

{¶ 3} We agree that the BTA erred by excluding evidence offered to show the value of the Kohl's parcel, and we reverse that ruling. We also agree that the BTA's failure to fully consider the appraisal evidence calls for vacating the BTA's decision and remanding the cause pursuant to Terraza 8 and Bronx Park .

I. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOR

{¶ 4} The auditor had valued all five parcels for tax year 2014, a reappraisal year in Greene County, at an aggregate value of $22,233,850; that valuation included assigning $5,606,900 to the Lowe's parcel and $6,197,150 to the Kohl's parcel.

{¶ 5} The proceedings before the BOR commenced when the school board filed a complaint against the 2014 valuation as to all five parcels, contending that their proper aggregate value was the 2014 sale price of $47,479,830, derived from the price set forth on a conveyance-fee statement for the five parcels that was filed on October 27, 2014.

{¶ 6} The BOR held a hearing attended by counsel for Beavercreek and the school board. The BOR adopted the sale price as the aggregate value of the five parcels and allocated it to the individual parcels by using the ratio of individual parcel value to aggregate value derived from the auditor's valuation. See FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 125 Ohio St.3d 485, 2010-Ohio-1921, 929 N.E.2d 426, ¶ 4, 11, 20, 32, 35 (affirming allocation of aggregate sale price reported on conveyance-fee statement to individual parcels in accordance with each individual parcel's share of the original aggregate valuation by the auditor). The BOR issued five decision letters, each setting forth the amount of the sale price allocated to each particular parcel. The Lowe's parcel was valued at $11,973,400 and the Kohl's parcel at $13,233,800.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BTA

A. The three appeals and the appraisal evidence

{¶ 7} Beavercreek, through attorney Ryan Gibbs, appealed the BOR's decision as to the Lowe's parcel to the BTA. Through attorney Karen Bauernschmidt, Beavercreek and its tenant Kohl's jointly appealed the BOR's decision as to the Kohl's parcel to the BTA. Finally, the school board filed a cross-appeal as to all five BOR decisions.

{¶ 8} The BTA consolidated the three appeals and held a hearing at which Beavercreek and Kohl's presented three appraisals prepared by Richard Racek Jr., a member of the Appraisal Institute, while also offering Racek's supporting testimony. Racek's appraisal of the Lowe's parcel determined a 2014 value of $7,300,000, based on the sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches. His appraisal of the Kohl's parcel determined a 2014 value of $5,930,000 based on the sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches. And his appraisal of the remaining three parcels determined a 2014 value of $22,075,000 for those parcels based on the sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches.

{¶ 9} Racek's aggregate valuation of the shopping center amounted to $35,305,000-well below the allocated portfolio sale price of $47,479,830.

B. The contract allocation of the sale price to the five parcels

{¶ 10} At the BTA hearing, the school board offered three exhibits, including a copy of the 2014 purchase agreement for the sale of the five Beavercreek Towne Station parcels and parcels at a nearby shopping center. The agreement contained an appendix that allocated the sale price to the parcels of the two shopping centers involved in the sale.

{¶ 11} The contract called for a sale of the Beavercreek center along with another shopping center as part of one transaction. On the pages showing the allocation of the overall sale price, there was an apparent error. One of the parcel numbers from the other shopping center was listed both as a component of that shopping center and as a component of Beavercreek. Additionally, the parcel number of the Lowe's parcel in Beavercreek was absent altogether.

{¶ 12} In addition to the documentary evidence, the school board offered the testimony of a subpoenaed officer of Beavercreek with respect to the allocation of the portfolio sale price of multiple properties.

C. The school board's motion to exclude

{¶ 13} Shortly before the BTA hearing, the school board moved to exclude Kohl's as a party on the grounds that Kohl's had no standing as a lessee separate from that of the property owner, Beavercreek. The school board renewed that motion at the hearing, and the board examiner deferred ruling on the motion until the ultimate decision. In response, Kohl's strenuously argued in favor of its own separate standing based on both the authorization from its landlord Beavercreek and the contention that because as tenant Kohl's is responsible for paying property taxes under the lease, it qualifies as the real party in interest.

D. The BTA's decision

{¶ 14} In its decision, the BTA first granted the school board's motion to exclude Kohl's as a party, explaining that as a mere lessee, Kohl's lacked standing as a complainant under R.C. 5715.19 and as an appellant to the BTA pursuant to R.C. 5717.01. BTA Nos. 2015-1488, 2015-1496, and 2015-1544, 2016 WL 6434037, *2 (Oct. 25, 2016). The BTA then struck from the record the appraisal evidence offered by Kohl's.

{¶ 15} Turning to the merits, the BTA began by noting that Beavercreek's objections to using the sale price were premised not primarily on the recency or arm's-length character of the sale but on two other circumstances: the sale involved the "leased fee interest" in the property, and the purchase price involved a portfolio sale including additional properties. Id. at *3. Although the tax year 2014 was at issue and amended R.C. 5713.03 calls for valuing the "fee simple estate, as if unencumbered," the BTA rejected Beavercreek's leased-fee argument by citing case law restricting rebuttal of the sale price to impugning the recency or arm's-length character of the transaction. Id. at *3. The BTA also rejected, both factually and as a legal objection to using the sale price, the contention that the property was not exposed to the open market in connection with the sale. Id. at *4.

{¶ 16} Next, the BTA addressed and rejected Beavercreek's contention that no portion of the sale price should be allocated to the Lowe's parcel because the Lowe's parcel number was absent from the contractual allocation of the sale price. The BTA inferred from the totality of the evidence that the omission of the Lowe's parcel number was a typographical error and concluded that the Lowe's parcel was part of the transfer referred to in the contract. Id. at *4-5.

{¶ 17} The BTA then addressed the issue of allocating the total sale price to the five individual parcels. The BTA invoked the property owner's "burden to rebut the propriety of [the] allocation" and found that Beavercreek had failed to rebut the validity of the allocation in the purchase agreement. Id. 2016 WL 6434037, at *6. Accordingly, the BTA adopted the contractual allocation, which substantially changed the proportionate share of the aggregate tax burden borne by the Lowe's and Kohl's parcels.

{¶ 18} Here are the values found by the BTA as opposed to those determined by the BOR:

BOR value BTA value Lowe's parcel $11,973,400 $13,698,600 Kohl's parcel $13,233,800 $11,155,410 Other parcels $22,272,700 $22,625,820 Aggregate $47,479,9001 $47,479,830

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote ].

{¶ 19} Two notices of appeal were filed from the BTA's decision. One was filed by attorney Gibbs on behalf of Beavercreek, and the other was filed by attorney Bauernschmidt on behalf of both Beavercreek and Kohl's.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Because Beavercreek authorized the tax appeal in relation to the Kohl's parcel, the BTA erred by excluding the evidence of value of that parcel

{¶ 20} The BTA correctly determined that as a tenant, Kohl's had no standing independent from its landlord, Beavercreek, to challenge the valuation of its parcel. That determination is well grounded. R.C. 5715.19(A) permits certain public officials to challenge property values along with "[a]ny person owning taxable real property in the county." Lessees are not mentioned and are therefore not authorized to file valuation complaints. Likewise, rights to appeal from BOR decisions to the BTA are confined to certain officials or boards, plus a "taxpayer authorized by section 5715.19 of the Revised Code to file complaints against valuations or assessments with the auditor." R.C. 5717.01. Lessees are not permitted to appeal to the BTA in their own right. Finally, R.C. 5717.04 authorizes appeals to this court in BOR cases by "any of the persons who were parties to the appeal before the [BTA]," along with specified other persons. Lessees, who are not properly parties below in their own right, cannot claim a right of their own to appeal to the court-and here the BTA did in fact explicitly exclude Kohl's as a separate party below (but did not dismiss the joint appeal to the BTA by Kohl's and Beavercreek). Accordingly, Kohl's could file an appeal from the BOR's decision to the BTA only as an agent of Beavercreek, not in its own right. It follows that the BTA did not abuse its discretion by excluding Kohl's as a separate and independent party to the appeal.

{¶ 21} Having granted the school board's motion to exclude Kohl's as a party, the BTA regarded it as a mere logical extension of that ruling to strike from the record "the appraisal evidence offered by Kohl's" as well as "any written argument filed by Kohl's." 2016 WL 6434037, *2. That additional ruling ignores the following facts relevant to jurisdiction: (1) the appeal from the BOR's valuation of the Kohl's parcel was prosecuted not only by Kohl's but by Beavercreek itself, (2) the school board did not ask for and the BTA did not grant a dismissal of the appeal of the valuation of the Kohl's parcel, and (3) Beavercreek allegedly conferred authority on Kohl's to pursue the appeal of the value of the Kohl's parcel on Beavercreek's behalf because the owner was not on its own initiative going to raise that challenge.

{¶ 22} We need not determine whether there was sufficient evidence that Beavercreek authorized Kohl's to pursue the appeal as its agent because attorney Bauernschmidt also filed the appeal on behalf of Beavercreek directly. The notice of appeal from the BOR's decision relating to the Kohl's parcel was explicitly prosecuted as a joint appeal of "Beavercreek Towne Station LLC and Kohl's Illinois, Inc. (Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.)." It was signed by "Karen Bauernschmidt, Esq." who gave her attorney-registration number along with her contact information-and she signed as "Appellant or Representative." There is no dispute that Beavercreek itself had authority as property owner to appeal the valuation of the Kohl's parcel, and the exclusion of Kohl's as an independent party did not prevent Bauernschmidt from prosecuting the appeal to the BTA in a representative capacity on behalf of Beavercreek itself .

{¶ 23} We have held, " 'When an attorney files an appeal, it is presumed that he has the requisite authority to do so.' " T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa , 149 Ohio St.3d 376, 2016-Ohio-8418, 75 N.E.3d 184, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Gibbs v. Zeller , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 9170, 1985 WL 7625, *1 (Jan. 24, 1985). That presumption attached to Bauernschmidt in this case based on the form of submission of the notice of appeal to the BTA, and it is the backdrop for viewing her authority to act on behalf of Beavercreek at the BTA hearing. Bauernschmidt filed the appeal to the BTA directly under Beavercreek's name, thereby asserting her authorization to pursue the appeal on behalf of the property owner.

{¶ 24} The school board argues that the only evidence of authorization consists of statements of the lawyers who are seeking a value reduction, which are not themselves evidence. But this argument rests on a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. Based on the notice of appeal relating to the Kohl's parcel, Bauernschmidt was presumed to possess authorization from Beavercreek as well as Kohl's; accordingly, the burden lay on the school board to offer "substantial proof" that such authorization was lacking. T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust at ¶ 17. Far from containing such proof, the record supports the authorization of Bauernschmidt by Beavercreek. At the BTA hearing, attorney Gibbs, who represented Beavercreek with respect to the Lowe's parcel, strongly confirmed the authorization of Kohl's and Bauernschmidt to litigate on behalf of Kohl's that parcel's value, and at oral argument, both attorneys confirmed that Beavercreek had authorized Bauernschmidt to appeal at the BTA and to this court. {¶ 25} Because Bauernschmidt presented evidence of the value of the Kohl's parcel on behalf of Beavercreek, it was error for the BTA to exclude that evidence. We therefore reverse the BTA's exclusion of that evidence.

B. The BTA did not abuse its discretion by inferring a typographical error

{¶ 26} The brief filed on behalf of Beavercreek by attorney Gibbs argues that there is no evidence in the record to show that the Lowe's parcel was part of the portfolio sale, with the result that the sale price cannot properly be allocated to the Lowe's parcel. Gibbs bases this contention on the contractual allocation attached to the purchase agreement: the Lowe's parcel number is not one of the five parcel numbers listed for Beavercreek.

{¶ 27} As discussed, the BTA found that other evidence, such as the deeds and property-record cards, confirmed that the Lowe's parcel was sold as part of the total Beavercreek sale and that the fifth parcel number on the contractual allocation was a typographical error. 2016 WL 6434037 at *5. The record contains substantial indicia that the Lowe's parcel was part of the sale, including the conveyance-fee statement, which does reference the Lowe's parcel number, and the testimony of Beavercreek officer Joseph Schlosser that the sale did contain the Lowe's parcel. Additionally, the appraiser himself testified that the actual Lowe's parcel number was part of the sale.

{¶ 28} Under the case law, we reverse the BTA's findings of fact only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a particular finding. HealthSouth Corp. v. Testa , 132 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-1871, 969 N.E.2d 232, ¶ 14. Here, ample evidence supports the BTA's inference of a typographical error.

C. The BTA erred by failing to give full consideration to the appraisal evidence

{¶ 29} As Beavercreek points out, the BTA's merits decision exhibits a defect similar to its decisions in Terraza 8 , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, and Bronx Park , 153 Ohio St.3d 550, 2018-Ohio-1589, 108 N.E.3d 1079. Namely, the BTA adopted an allocated aggregate sale price of leased properties as the property value of each parcel without giving proper consideration to the appraisal evidence.

{¶ 30} Particularly notable in this case is that the appraiser, Richard Racek, testified that the contract rent of the Lowe's and Kohl's parcels exceeded the market rent derived from rent comparables. With respect to the Lowe's parcel, Racek opined that the prices for leased parcels were significantly higher than the prices for unencumbered parcels because "properties that are leased generally sell for far more per square foot than ones that are not leased." Thus, the appraiser's evidence could, if properly considered, substantiate a finding that the sale price might not indicate the value of the unencumbered fee-simple estate.

{¶ 31} Accordingly, we vacate the BTA's decision and remand the cause to the BTA for further proceedings, including full consideration of the appraisal evidence of the value of the parcels at issue. To the extent that the BTA adopts an allocated sale price on remand, the BTA shall also give full consideration to the propriety of the allocation in light of all the evidence in the record. But the BTA shall decide the case based on the existing record and not receive new evidence. Bronx Park , 153 Ohio St.3d 550, 2018-Ohio-1589, 108 N.E.3d 1079, at ¶ 13.

IV. CONCLUSION

{¶ 32 } For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the BTA's decision and remand the cause for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Decision vacated and cause remanded.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

      The small discrepancy between the aggregate numbers may be attributed to rounding that was part of the BOR's computation of allocated value.

      Earlier during this appeal, we denied the school board's motion to dismiss the notice of appeal filed by Bauernschmidt on behalf of Beavercreek and Kohl's. 148 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2017-Ohio-1427, 72 N.E.3d 655. Our denial of the motion was justified both by Kohl's independent standing to appeal its own exclusion as a party, see Southside Community Dev. Corp. v. Levin , 116 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2007-Ohio-6665, 878 N.E.2d 1048, ¶ 11, and by Bauernschmidt's presumptive authority to file on behalf of Beavercreek. Additionally, we note that Beavercreek's filing two separate notices of appeal from the same BTA decision is not good practice and parties should avoid it. However, we do not perceive a jurisdictional defect under these circumstances, given that both notices of appeal separately invoked the court's jurisdiction as of the time they were filed. Accord Soyko Kulchystsky, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 141 Ohio St.3d 43, 2014-Ohio-4511, 21 N.E.3d 297, ¶ 30 (jurisdiction over a valuation complaint is determined when the complaint is filed).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    KOHL'S ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Appellees, v. MARION COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants.
    No. 2017-0161
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted September 11, 2018 Decided November 6, 2018
    Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, Cleveland, Nicholas Ray, Columbus, and Heather M. Lutz, for appellee Kohl's Illinois, Inc.
    Raymond A. Grogan Jr., Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matt Frericks and David Stamolis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant Marion County Board of Revision.
    Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Stacy V. Pollock, Douglas P. Holthus, Columbus, and Frank H. Scialdone, Cleveland, for appellant River Valley Local School District Board of Education.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This property-tax appeal brings the tax-year-2010 complaint filed by appellee Kohl's Illinois, Inc., before us for a second time. See Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision , 140 Ohio St.3d 522, 2014-Ohio-4353, 20 N.E.3d 711 (" Kohl's I "). In this appeal, appellants, Marion County Board of Revision ("BOR") and the River Valley Local School District Board of Education ("school board"), appeal a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") that was issued after our remand in Kohl's I . They contend that the BTA should have enforced a recorded covenant that purports to prohibit Kohl's, the property owner, from contesting the Marion County auditor's valuations of the property.

{¶ 2} In the decision on appeal, the BTA held that it had already decided not to enforce the covenant in an October 2015 decision that it issued after we remanded the case in Kohl's I . Because the October 2015 decision was not appealed, the BTA concluded that the BOR and the school board were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from seeking enforcement of the covenant. The BOR and the school board argue that the BTA did not actually decide the covenant issue previously.

{¶ 3} We disagree, and we therefore affirm the BTA's decision.

I. Background

{¶ 4} In Kohl's I , we reviewed a BTA decision affirming the BOR's dismissal of a valuation complaint filed by Kohl's for tax year 2010. The BTA agreed with the BOR

that the complaint was jurisdictionally barred by the covenant. That covenant, which originated in a tax-increment-financing ("TIF") agreement, stated that the property owner could not file a complaint against an increased valuation of the property during the effective years of the TIF agreement. Kohl's allegedly became bound by the covenant when it acquired the property from an entity that was a party to the TIF agreement. Kohl's I , 140 Ohio St.3d 522, 2014-Ohio-4353, 20 N.E.3d 711, at ¶ 7.

{¶ 5} In Kohl's I , we held that the covenant was not a jurisdictional bar but might be a valid defense to the property owner's valuation complaint. We then vacated the BTA's decision and remanded the case with instructions that the BTA afford the beneficiaries of the covenant (the county commissioners and the school board) the opportunity to establish the binding validity of the covenant as a defense against the complaint. Id. at ¶ 32, 38.

{¶ 6} After remand, the BTA consolidated the tax-year-2010 case with a later appeal in which Kohl's had challenged the property's valuation for 2013. On October 15, 2015, the BTA issued a decision addressing both the 2010 and 2013 valuation complaints. BTA Nos. 2011-2747 and 2014-3897, 2015 WL 10985205 (Oct. 15, 2015). In that decision, the BTA determined that no sufficient argument for enforcing the covenant had been advanced. Id. at *5. The BTA then ordered two separate dispositions for the two tax years at issue. As for tax year 2010, the BTA remanded the matter to the BOR to determine value. Id. Regarding tax year 2013, the BTA adopted an appraisal valuation that reduced the property's value. Id. at *6. No appeal was taken from the October 2015 decision.

{¶ 7} On remand at the BOR, Kohl's introduced an appraisal report and testimony in support of a reduced value of $3,925,000 for tax year 2010. When the BOR retained the auditor's valuation of $5,090,370, Kohl's appealed to the BTA. On January 5, 2017, the BTA held that the covenant claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. The BTA then adopted the appraisal valuation of $3,925,000 for the property.

{¶ 8} The BOR and the school board have appealed to this court from the BTA's 2017 decision, asserting the covenant claim but not contesting the merits of the valuation reduction for tax year 2010.

II. Analysis

{¶ 9} Citing Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley , 62 Ohio St.2d 133, 403 N.E.2d 996 (1980), the BTA denied reconsideration of the covenant issue on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. As we stated in Superior's Brand Meats , the importance of finality in administrative proceedings justifies applying collateral estoppel in the context of BTA decisions when the elements for doing so have been satisfied. Id. at syllabus. In the BTA context, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when "the parties have had an ample opportunity to litigate the issues involved in the proceeding." Id.

{¶ 10} In challenging the BTA's decision, the BOR and the school board do not contend that the covenant issue is somehow not the same issue addressed in the BTA's October 2015 decision, nor do they dispute that the identical parties were before the BTA when it issued that decision. Instead, the appellants contend that the covenant issue was not "actually determined" in the BTA's October 2015 decision. To support this point, the county relies on the tentative language that was part of the BTA's discussion in the October 2015 decision: "Since the county appellees have failed to provide this board with any pertinent legal authority, we are unable to make a determination as to whether the no-contest covenant is binding and enforceable upon Kohl's." 2015 WL 10985205 at *5.

{¶ 11} Although this statement, if taken in isolation, could be viewed as not deciding whether the no-contest covenant was enforceable against Kohl's, the statement must be read in its context. The sentence is situated in the middle of the following paragraph, which we quote in full:

Upon careful examination of the record before this board, the county appellees have failed to satisfy their burden on remand as set forth by the Supreme Court to show that the "no-contest covenant is valid and binding under contract law or real-covenant law." Kohl's [I , 140 Ohio St.3d 522, 20 N.E.3d 711] at ¶ 29. Indeed, the county appellees failed to provide any statutory basis for applying the covenant to Kohl's and failed to demonstrate that the no-contest covenant qualifies as a covenant that runs with the land under pertinent case law. In fact, it bears noting that the county appellees do not cite to any legal authority for applying the no-contest covenant to Kohl's or to prove the covenant qualifies as one that runs with the land. Since the county appellees have failed to provide this board with any pertinent legal authority, we are unable to make a determination as to whether the no-contest covenant is binding and enforceable upon Kohl's. Because the Supreme Court's [sic] found that "the TIF agreement is not a jurisdictional restriction," [ id. at ¶ 1 ] and based upon the record before this board, we hereby vacate the BOR's dismissal of the underlying tax year 2010 complaint and remand this matter to the BOR with instructions to conduct further proceedings to determine the value of the subject property for tax year 2010.

2015 WL 10985205 at *5.

{¶ 12} The context of the entire paragraph shows that the BTA made a finding that the proponents of applying the covenant failed to prove that they were entitled to its enforcement.

{¶ 13} The appellants additionally contend that because the BTA did not actually decide the covenant issue, that issue was still an open question and unappealable at that time. But as discussed above, the BTA did make a determination and in doing so, made its October 2015 decision final and appealable on that point. That is so because the BTA's refusal to enforce the covenant was an order that "affect[ed] a substantial right," R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), i.e., the alleged right to enforce the covenant, which was irretrievably lost when the BTA ordered the BOR to proceed to determine the property's value for 2010 and the county did not appeal. See Southside Community Dev. Corp. v. Levin , 116 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2007-Ohio-6665, 878 N.E.2d 1048, ¶ 5.

{¶ 14} Despite this straightforward reasoning, the BOR and the school board assert that the BTA, through its October 2015 decision, "maintained jurisdiction to vacate or modify its * * * decision." Under this theory, the BTA's remand of the case for a determination of value for tax year 2010 made the determination of the covenant issue interlocutory and unappealable as to that tax year, leaving open a later resolution in a second appeal.

{¶ 15} But the October 2015 decision makes no statement about retaining jurisdiction, and any such assertion by the BTA would be contrary to the general proposition that a remand order constitutes a relinquishment of jurisdiction over the case. See Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 144 Ohio St.3d 128, 2015-Ohio-4304, 41 N.E.3d 396, ¶ 31.

{¶ 16} Also significant is the fact that the BTA's remand order did not call for the BOR to reconsider whether to enforce the covenant. Instead, the BTA itself decided the covenant issue against enforcement and instructed the BOR to determine the property's value. The BTA thereby merged its covenant determination into the remand order, with the result that the October 2015 decision barred the BOR from addressing the covenant issue again. Id. at ¶ 37 (law-of-the-case doctrine jurisdictionally barred the lower tribunal from acting contrary to the ruling of the superior tribunal). It follows that the BOR on remand had no option to enforce the covenant and that during the second appeal to the BTA from the BOR, there was no open issue regarding the covenant.

{¶ 17} Contrary to the assertions of the BOR and the school board, the BTA in its January 2017 decision confronted an attempt to relitigate the BTA's October 2015 decision against enforcement of the covenant. The BTA correctly applied collateral estoppel to preclude that attempt.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 18} For the foregoing reasons, the BTA properly applied collateral estoppel, and the BOR and the school board do not contest the reduced valuation on the merits. We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA.

Decision affirmed.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE v. PECK
    2018-1518
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
    DeWINE and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE K.M.
    2018-1331
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. PENDLETON
    2018-1348
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.
   FRENCH, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

DEGENARO, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III only.

O'CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, J., dissent.


text:
    IN RE D.T.
    2018-1375
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 2018-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE M.T.
    2018-1376
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 2018-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE R.T.
    2018-1377
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 2018-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. RUCKER
    2018-1411
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
    KENNEDY and FRENCH, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. KREMER
    2018-1421
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, J., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. HALE
    2018-1477
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.


author: DEGENARO, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. NORRIS
    2018-1483
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
   DEGENARO, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. MARSHALL
    2018-1493
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. DOUGLAS
    2018-1499
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. MAYLE
    2018-1503
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
    FISCHER, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. ZIMMER
    2018-1505
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
    KENNEDY and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. BRUCE
    2018-1507
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
   DEGENARO, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. YARBROUGH
    2018-1338
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. MCCLELLAN
    2018-1339
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SIMPSON
    2018-1344
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. OLOYE
    2018-1345
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'DONNELL, FRENCH, and DEWINE, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE J.T.
    2018-1379
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 2018-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE S.K.
    2018-1380
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 0218-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE T.K.
    2018-1381
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I only. Sua sponte, Nos. 2018-1375 through 77 and 2018-1379 through 81 are consolidated.
    KENNEDY, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. BARNES
    2018-1389
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FISCHER, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

O'CONNOR, C.J., and DEGENARO, J., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. WERE
    2018-1162
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Motion to supplement record granted.
    FISCHER, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and VII.


text:
    TESAR INDUS. CONTRACTORS, INC. v. REPUBLIC STEEL
    2018-1180
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'DONNELL, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.


author: FISCHER, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. DEAN
    2018-1302
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FISCHER, J., dissents.


text:
    PFALZGRAF v. MILEY
    2018-1285
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    FISCHER, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I through IV and VII.
    DEGENARO, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I through IV.


author: FISCHER, J., not participating.

text:
    MOORE v. MICHALSKI
    2018-1291
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, J., dissent.
   FISCHER, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. PANDEY
    2018-1292
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FISCHER, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. HEIMBERGER
    2018-1293
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    WEINBERG v. WEINBERG
    2018-1296
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'DONNELL, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.


text:
    STATE v. GRATER
    2018-1295
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. TAYLOR
    2018-1303
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    THORNTON v. LEMON
    2018-1319
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. MONTALVO
    2018-1322
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. BRASWELL
    2018-1323
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. LUNDY
    2018-1327
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. COLEMAN
    2018-1328
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. COYLE
    2018-133
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PARKER
    2018-1334
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. EL-AMIN
    2018-1502
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SMITH
    2018-1346
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. NORRIS
    2018-1371
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. KRUG
    2018-1372
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. LACY
    2018-1378
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. DALLMAN
    2018-1385
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'DONNELL, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.


author: FRENCH, J., dissents.

text:
    GRIFFIN CONTRACTING & RESTORATION v. MCINTYRE
    2018-1391
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FRENCH, J., dissents.


author: O'DONNELL, J., dissents.

text:
    GRUBBS v. DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.
    2018-1393
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   O'DONNELL, J., dissents.


text:
    IN RE T.W.
    2018-1394
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'DONNELL, FRENCH, and DEWINE, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE D.R.
    2018-1407
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    MIDDLETON v. GEICO SECURE INS. CO.
    2018-1351
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SALES
    2018-1408
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PATTERSON
    2018-1415
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would accept the cause on proposition of law No. I only.
    FISCHER, J., dissents and would accept the cause on proposition of law No. II only.


author: DEGENARO, J., not participating.

text:
    TARULLO v. THOMPSON
    2018-1420
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. SCOTT
    2018-1424
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. STEFAN
    2018-1426
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. CALDWELL
    2018-1442
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. NOBLE
    2018-1450
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. THOMAS
    2018-1457
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FISCHER, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. TIELEN
    2018-1458
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    FRENCH and FISCHER, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal and appoint counsel to the appellant.


text:
    STATE v. BOLER
    2018-1465
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. WORKMAN
    2018-1356
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PALMER
    2018-1467
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PRYOR
    2018-1468
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. TAYSE
    2018-1485
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. CARTER
    2018-1491
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PENNINGTON
    2018-1539
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. WILLIAMS
    2018-1360
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    PIPPO v. FITZGERALD
    2018-1365
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   FRENCH, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. HARRIS
    2018-1366
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Motion to amend notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction granted.
   FRENCH, J., would deny the motion to amend as moot.


text:
    STATE v. STUBER
    2018-1392
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    ATTAR v. MARINE TOWERS E. CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSN.
    2018-1395
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    BARNES v. PASQUALINI
    2018-1402
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. MATHEWS
    2018-1469
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    ROGERS v. EPPINGER
    2017-1644
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. SIMPSON v. COOPER
    2018-0215
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   FISCHER, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HARRIS v. KUBICKI
    2018-0964
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On relator's motion for en banc reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. FREDERICK
    2018-1045
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HULL
    2018-0158
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, Jonathan Hull, Attorney Registration No. 0003925, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 31, 2018.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARTER
    2018-0249
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, Brian Wade Harter, Attorney Registration No. 0055500, last known business address in Delaware, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 29, 2018.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CLUTTS
    2018-1227
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, Raymond Edward Clutts, Attorney Registration No. 0058842, last known business address in Schaumburg, Illinois, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 29, 2018.


text:
    STATE v. THOMAS
    2018-0796
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH and FISCHER, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KING v. WELLS
    2018-0865
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On relator's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. WOODSON
    2018-1003
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. HAMMOCK
    2018-1043
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   FISCHER, J., not participating.


text:
    IN RE Application of DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO.
    2017-0241
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   O'DONNELL, J., dissents.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for O'NEILL, J.


text:
    OHIO N. UNIV. v. CHARLES CONSTR. SERVS., INC.
    2017-0514
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellee's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KLEIN v. PRECISION EXCAVATING & GRADING CO.
    2017-0589
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellee's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. BONNELL
    2017-1360
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH and DEGENARO, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion in part and would clarify the analysis in paragraph 26 of the court's opinion.


text:
    CINCINNATI BAR ASSN. v. FERNANDEZ
    2017-1409
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 12, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On respondent's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, and DEWINE, JJ., dissent.
   MICHAEL T. HALL, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for O'NEILL, J.


text:
    U.S. BANK NATL. ASSN. v. CONRAD
    2018-0834
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellant's motion for "third-party interest application en banc consideration." Motion denied.


text:
    DAVID v. MATTER
    2017-1391
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSAL
    On appellants' application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    JOHNSON v. BUR. OF SENTENCE COMPUTATION
    2018-1449
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSAL
    On relator's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    IN RE B.D.
    2018-1615
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDER
    Sua sponte, appellee's memorandum in response to jurisdiction stricken as untimely.


text:
    SUMMERS v. FOX
    2018-0959
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    The case has been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.
    Respondents shall file response to complaint within 21 days.


text:
    STATE EX REL. PEASPANEN v. ASHTABULA CTY. AUDITOR'S OFFICE
    2018-1122
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    The case has been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE v. RYAN
    2018-1733
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 13, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSAL
    On appellant's application for dismissal of duplicate case. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE v. AHMED
    2018-1748
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 13, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDER
    On appellant's memorandum in support of jurisdiction. The memorandum fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.09(B)(3). Sua sponte, the document is stricken. Appellant shall file an amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction that complies with all provisions of the Supreme Court within 15 days. Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days of the date of filing of appellant's amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KINDNESS v. HAMILTON
    2018-0466
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the case has reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct. Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the relator(s) in each case shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement. A case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.


text:
    CLEMENTE v. WASHBURN
    2018-0935
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the case has reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct. Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the relator(s) in each case shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement. A case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HUNTER v. DEPT. OF EDN.
    2018-1383
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the case has reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct. Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the relator(s) in each case shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement. A case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.


text:
    STATE EX REL. DEMATTEO v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYS.
    2018-1531
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    MEDIATION MATTER
    Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the case has reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct. Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the appellants shall file either an application for dismissal or a merit brief in accordance with the Supreme
    Court Rules of Practice. The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.


text:
    ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 18, 2018
    CONTINUING-LEGAL-EDUCATION MATTERS
    Gov.Bar R. X(3) requires all attorneys admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and each attorney registered for corporate status pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI to complete at least 24 hours of continuing legal education ("CLE"), including two and a half hours related to professional conduct, for each two-year compliance period. Gov.Bar R. X(4) requires attorneys whose last names begin with a letter from A through L to complete the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X on or before December 31 of each odd-numbered year. Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A) provides that an attorney or judge who fails to comply timely with the applicable requirements of Gov.Bar R. X or Gov.Jud.R. IV but does so within 90 days of the December 31 deadline shall be assessed a late fee in accordance with CLE Reg. 503. Gov.Bar R. X(18)(B) provides that an attorney or judge who fails to comply with the applicable requirements of Gov.Bar R. X or Gov.Jud.R. IV shall be notified of noncompliance by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education and that unless the attorney or judge comes into compliance or files evidence of compliance that is satisfactory to the commission on or before the date set forth in the notice, the commission shall issue an order imposing a sanction authorized by Gov.Bar R. X(17) and consistent with CLE Reg. 503.
    On December 14, 2018, the commission sanctioned 248 attorneys for noncompliance with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X. The following attorneys were issued a monetary sanction for not completing the educational hours required by Gov.Bar R. X(3) and not filing evidence of compliance or coming into compliance as required by Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A). The sanction amount displayed in the last column is based on the number and the type of hour deficiency.
       Name   Attorney Number   County   State   Amount     Joseph Anthony Benavidez   0042447   Allen   OH   $ 75.00     Brian Joseph Halligan   0024113   Ashland   OH   $300.00     Randy Dean Gossett   0016655   Belmont   OH   $225.00     Catherine Adams   0023480   Brown   OH   $150.00     Ira Myron Berman   0008636   Butler   OH   $300.00     Norbert Mark Doellman Jr.   0002122   Butler   OH   $225.00     Karl Frederick Kilguss   0084449   Butler   OH   $300.00     James Allen Berry   0024082   Clark   OH   $150.00     Jessica Loomis Shockley Kimes   0077198   Clark   OH   $225.00     David Lee Huprich   0025067   Clermont   OH   $225.00     Heather Dawn Walsh   0080366   Clermont   OH   $300.00     Scott Emerson Allbery   0039137   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Theodore Alexander Amata   0065658   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Michael Branch Aten Jr.   0083386   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Joseph Bancsi   0025450   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Douglas Verne Bartman   0073103   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Autumn Basil   0065790   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Stanley Bennett   0010238   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Robert Jerome Berk   0001031   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Karl Stephen Beus   0059931   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Evan McKee Bishop   0090950   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Jason Collier Blackford   0017481   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Alexis Catherine Bomback   0089002   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Robert Chester Brooks II   0040881   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Charles Steven Butler   0024316   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Emil Joseph Centa   0031080   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Thomas David Corrigan   0022810   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Ben Thompson Davies   0091082   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Liam Joseph Dunn   0092488   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Leon Ray Ferraez Jr.   0092844   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     John Joseph Gill   0024028   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Bradley Scot Glazer   0027619   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Timothy Paul Haffey   0041438   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Jason Patrick Hager   0075849   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Katherine M. Haka   0044024   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Gladys Elaine Harrison   0016051   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Alan Neil Hirth   0021953   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Elissa Louise Hopson   0083174   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Nathan John Hudak   0081666   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     Teresa James   0031671   Cuyahoga   OH   $ 75.00     David James Janco   0041358   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Adam Phillip Jason   0087391   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Andrew Lee Johnson Jr.   0010004   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Jessica Anne Kaiser   0085843   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     David Anthony Kemme   0012389   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Steven Brian Koblentz   0019355   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Peter Joseph Krembs   0024871   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Paul Emory Larson   0069636   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Esther Oakalee Carr Lester   0041547   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Gary Howard Levine   0025993   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Dustin Scott Lewis   0082686   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Robert Lee Lewis   0022253   Cuyahoga   OH   $150.00     Marie Elizabeth Ballou   0043902   Delaware   OH   $300.00     Sean Patrick Costello   0068612   Delaware   OH   $300.00     James Henry Klein   0006857   Delaware   OH   $ 75.00     Michael Ray Baker   0039646   Erie   OH   $150.00     Ronald J. James   0024674   Erie   OH   $225.00     Dale Robert England Jr.   0017053   Fairfield   OH   $300.00     David Charles Ahlstrom   0085784   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Christopher Joseph Allwein   0084914   Franklin   OH   $ 75.00     James Edward Betts   0010960   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Robert Nathaniel Black Jr.   0019343   Franklin   OH   $150.00     James Richard Brown   0063295   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Thomas Jay Brown Jr.   0012209   Franklin   OH   $225.00     Robert Thomas Burda   0011917   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Jack C. Butler   0024463   Franklin   OH   $ 75.00     Melinda Dianne Carter   0042590   Franklin   OH   $ 75.00     Geneva Gaither Cleamons   0031095   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Kelly Katherine Curtis   0079285   Franklin   OH   $225.00     Colin Michael Daly   0088614   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Adam Peter Demko   0080083   Franklin   OH   $ 75.00     James Phillip Dinsmore   0051798   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Kevin Daniel Dunn   0088333   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Marcus David Dunn   0062732   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Xavier Brian Edwards   0084293   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Fredrick Lee Fisher   0032434   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Jackalynne Ann Fletcher   0064380   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Gregory Alan Goetz   0090356   Franklin   OH   $225.00     Sara Allyn Hall   0092696   Franklin   OH   $300.00     William Mayne Hayden   0004942   Franklin   OH   $225.00     Eric Michael Hedrick   0083207   Franklin   OH   $150.00     John Folger Hilt Jr.   0029132   Franklin   OH   $150.00     James M. Hoffmann   0074856   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Nicholas Andrew Horn   0092096   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Kristi Ming-ing Hsu   0089582   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Brian Edward Huggins   0091683   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Kelli Nicole Hughes   0088518   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Jeffrey Dwight Hunter   0061364   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Alexander Stephen Kocsis   0024908   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Howard Paul Lowe   0034295   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Jeffrey Karl Lucas   0074504   Franklin   OH   $150.00     Jonathan David Adee   0069082   Hamilton   OH   $225.00     Tracy Baffour Agyemang   0096235   Hamilton   OH   $150.00     Stanley Jerome Aronoff   0011694   Hamilton   OH   $ 75.00     Caleb Brown Jr.   0020678   Hamilton   OH   $ 75.00     Debra Kay Crane   0066729   Hamilton   OH   $ 75.00     Mary Theresa Foster   0081729   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Harold Sol Freeman   0012709   Hamilton   OH   $150.00     Donald Francis Frei   0002190   Hamilton   OH   $150.00     Jerome Janson Grogan   0076029   Hamilton   OH   $ 75.00     James Albert Higgins   0021127   Hamilton   OH   $ 75.00     Lawrence Knight Hoyt   0037759   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Mary Jill Brewster Hugan   0074457   Hamilton   OH   $225.00     Todd Maurice Immell   0069047   Hamilton   OH   $225.00     Jill Elizabeth Jakab   0008599   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Jessie Hanson LeMasters   0077914   Hamilton   OH   $225.00     Nancy Hampton Ludwig   0077952   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Heather Nicole Keesee   0086873   Hocking   OH   $300.00     Richard Craig Andrews   0009537   Lake   OH   $300.00     Paul Brickner   0026246   Lake   OH   $150.00     Karl William Hauber   0073661   Lake   OH   $300.00     Karen Lynn Hummel   0088982   Lake   OH   $ 75.00     Alfred Vincent Lucas   0027737   Lake   OH   $ 75.00     John David Birmingham   0044009   Lucas   OH   $300.00     Thomas Gene French   0076643   Lucas   OH   $225.00     William Edwin Higley II   0041761   Lucas   OH   $300.00     Christopher Lee Killion   0074029   Lucas   OH   $300.00     Terrence Franklin Cloonan   0017262   Mahoning   OH   $ 75.00     Donald Patrick Leone   0000154   Mahoning   OH   $ 75.00     Daryl Edward Kowalski   0089611   Medina   OH   $300.00     John Adams Cervay   0014398   Montgomery   OH   $225.00     Christopher Brady Coulles   0089783   Montgomery   OH   $ 75.00     David Joseph Cranmer   0038667   Montgomery   OH   $150.00     Timothy James Dawe   0046954   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     David Matthew Federico   0091163   Montgomery   OH   $150.00     Gregory Patrick Garner   0039111   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     Caitlin Elizabeth Lanning   0090718   Montgomery   OH   $ 75.00     Michael Richard Bassett   0079591   Ottawa   OH   $150.00     Charles Ray Burns   0051963   Ottawa   OH   $225.00     Errol Anthony Can   0058590   Portage   OH   $300.00     Duane Lynn Doyle   0034042   Portage   OH   $150.00     Doston B. Jones   0084195   Portage   OH   $300.00     Richard Vincent Friedmann   0069038   Seneca   OH   $300.00     Paul Michael Kelley   0088148   Stark   OH   $225.00     Colleen Marie Bonk   0067165   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Melissa Renea Cox   0071461   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Laura A. DiCola   0039547   Summit   OH   $300.00     Michael David Esposito   0077221   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Donald Bryan Ferfolia Jr.   0082049   Summit   OH   $225.00     Bruce Richard Freedman   0023864   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Ruth Ann Gibson   0004701   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Jeffery Allen Kaleda   0069149   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     John Peter Lazar   0009760   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     Douglas Glenn Leak   0045554   Summit   OH   $ 75.00     James Martin Brutz   0011144   Trumbull   OH   $ 75.00     Susan Stanton Katz   0008893   Trumbull   OH   $300.00     Garry Owen Hurless   0081611   Tuscarawas   OH   $150.00     William George Fowler   0005254   Warren   OH   $ 75.00     Andrew Paul George   0071311   Warren   OH   $150.00     Joan Alice Maria Gibson   0040148    AZ   $150.00     Erin Margaret Kansy   0090982    CA   $ 75.00     Sanjeev Kumar   0078874    CA   $150.00     Cody Launder   0088611    CA   $300.00     Sarah Marie Branam   0080859    CO   $ 75.00     Judith Ann Hoechst   0043643    CO   $300.00     Gwendolyn A. Montgomery   0068514    CO   $225.00     Glen Henry Ackerman   0072724    DC   $ 75.00     Jesse Wayne Lemon   0092370    DC   $ 75.00     William Lee Bowersock   0029925    FL   $300.00     Anthony Britt   0037891    FL   $225.00     Gary Nicholas Brott   0021230    FL   $ 75.00     Edward Michael Kolesar   0039970    FL   $150.00     Christine Lynn St. John   0056252    FL   $150.00     Davi Leitao Kruger   0088615    GA   $ 75.00     Shayla Alexandria King   0091294    IL   $ 75.00     Brad Aaron Catlin   0083342    IN   $ 75.00     David Edgar Davidson   0016543    KY   $ 75.00     Laurie Bilz Dowell   0041208    KY   $225.00     Laura Jean Flowers   0074829    KY   $ 75.00     Christopher Allen Griffin   0076991    KY   $ 75.00     Michael Joseph Asher   0071787    MI   $300.00     Stephen Conrad Bappert   0083410    MI   $225.00     Michael Leo Battersby   0073558    MI   $300.00     Richard Arthur Buntele   0030872    MI   $300.00     Bryan Cermak   0037114    MI   $225.00     Ari Matthew Charlip   0093185    MI   $ 75.00     Richard Gerard Convertino   0041494    MI   $300.00     Elias Habib Hazkial   0085463    MI   $300.00     David Edmer Lacasse   0084077    MI   $300.00     Barbara Lynn Freedy   0011582    NC   $225.00     Claudine Marie Lovitt   0069335    NC   $150.00     Michael Anthony Cretella   0077917    NJ   $225.00     David Edward DeLorenzi   0058312    NJ   $225.00     Andre' F. Hewitt   0087507    NJ   $ 75.00     Gary Alan Jones   0037777    NM   $150.00     Sean Alexander Cooke   0088999    NV   $ 75.00     Mary Elizabeth Cubberly   0092574    NY   $300.00     Johnathan Morton Fox   0079548    NY   $300.00     Jessie Morgan Gabriel   0081290    NY   $ 75.00     Hanan Benjamin Kolko   0033071    NY   $150.00     Adam Grant Anderson   0078750    PA   $225.00     Cara Catherine Davis   0090336    PA   $150.00     Glenn Robert Davis   0077536    PA   $150.00     Ivan Stewart DeVoren   0091900    PA   $300.00     Samuel Hood Foreman   0064624    PA   $300.00     Matthew Scott Jordan   0089030    PA   $ 75.00     Gary Lee Kaplan   0083074    PA   $300.00     Robert Vincent Kelley Jr.   0071645    PA   $150.00     Curtis Alan Fisher   0028911    SC   $300.00     Erin Ann Jochim   0077062    SC   $ 75.00     Vicki Lee Doster   0055693    TN   $300.00     Wilbert Byrd   0011315    TX   $225.00     Robert Martin Gow   0059890    TX   $300.00     Otis Wayne Grigsby Jr.   0090789    TX   $150.00     Margaret Miles Guerra   0088951    TX   $300.00     David Jackson Lyon   0011035    UT   $150.00     James Murrell Daniel Jr.   0089922    VA   $ 75.00     James Benjamin Atkins   0093208    WV   $150.00     Wilbert Howard Klatt   0067932    WV   $300.00
    On December 14, 2018, the Commission on Continuing Legal Education issued orders imposing monetary sanctions and suspending 39 attorneys for noncompliance with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X. The following attorneys were sanctioned and suspended for not completing the educational hours required by Gov.Bar R. X(3) and not filing evidence of compliance or coming into compliance as required by Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A). The attorneys were also out of compliance with Gov.Bar R. X for the 2014 and 2016 compliance periods. The sanction amount as displayed in the last column is based on the number and the type of hour deficiency.
       Name   Attorney Number   County   State   Amount     Thomas Joseph Kircher   23473   Butler   OH   $300.00     Kevin Michael Brokaw   72893   Cuyahoga   OH   $225.00     Robert Raymond Lech   73078   Delaware   OH   $300.00     Catherine Michelle Brown   66911   Lorain   OH   $300.00     Hui Li   82661   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     Joseph Richard Cruse Jr.   73207    CA   $300.00     Jason Robert Gilbert   74044    KY   $300.00
    The following attorneys were sanctioned and suspended for not completing the hours required by Gov.Bar R. X(3) and not filing evidence of compliance or coming into compliance as required by Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A).
    The attorneys also have not paid prior commission-ordered sanctions issued for noncompliance in the 2016 compliance period. The sanction amount as displayed in the last column is based on the number and the type of hour deficiency.
       Name   Attorney Number   County   State   Amount     Melinda J. Annandale   51935   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Kenneth Earl Banks   7194   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Gerald Alan Berk   11529   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Johnny Mac Chandler   24838   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Paul Joseph Daley   17973   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Alex Jovanovic   21469   Cuyahoga   OH   $300.00     Leslie Ann Akers   33751   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Mark John Barrett   19584   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Philip Wayne Cramer   29123   Franklin   OH   $300.00     Thomas Stephen Erlenbach   18014   Franklin   OH   $300.00     David Joseph Braukman   84253   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Reeta Hem Brendamour   67023   Hamilton   OH   $300.00     Dixie Kay Floyd   41110   Licking   OH   $300.00     Kathleen Ann Gliva   17023   Licking   OH   $300.00     Christopher Alan Forejt   76110   Lucas   OH   $300.00     Norman George   31903   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     Dennis Michael Hanaghan   3464   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     Ellen Sue Leffak   29586   Montgomery   OH   $300.00     Tiffany Michelle Crawford   85684   Shelby   OH   $300.00     Robert Raymond Hunter Jr.   26616   Stark   OH   $300.00     Ralph David Amiet   8541   Summit   OH   $300.00     Gregory Janko Kovacevich   81459   Summit   OH   $300.00     Joseph Carmen Letizia   83004   Summit   OH   $300.00     Michael Anthony Bernard   6312   Trumbull   OH   $225.00     James Kevin Earp   83593    AZ   $300.00     Walter Joseph Kosydar   17824    CA   $300.00     William Michael Dixon   63520    IA   $300.00     Eleanor Sherrell Andrews   44142    NY   $300.00     Mark Allen Dunn   63922    TX   $300.00     Stephany T. Jackson   88952    TX   $300.00
    Gov.Bar R. X(9)(A) and 14(A) require attorneys newly admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and attorneys newly registered for corporate status pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI, during their first biennial compliance period, to complete at least 12 hours of new-lawyers-training instruction, including one hour each of professionalism, law-office management, and client-fund management, and nine hours of instruction in one or more substantive-law topics that focus on handling legal matters in specific practice areas. Gov.Bar R. X(4) requires attorneys whose last names begin with a letter from M through Z to comply with the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X on or before December 31 of even-numbered years. Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A) provides that an attorney or judge who fails to comply timely with the applicable requirements of Gov.Bar R. X or Gov.Jud.R. IV but does so within 90 days of the December 31 deadline shall be assessed a late-compliance fee, as established by the commission. Gov.Bar R. X(18)(B) provides that an attorney or judge who fails to comply with the applicable requirements of Gov.Bar R. X or Gov.Jud.R. IV shall be notified of noncompliance by the commission and that unless the attorney or judge comes into compliance or files evidence of compliance that is satisfactory to the commission on or before the date set forth in the notice, the commission shall issue an order imposing a sanction authorized by Gov.Bar R. X(17) and consistent with CLE Reg. 503.
    The following attorneys were sanctioned and suspended for not completing the new-lawyers-training requirement as required by Gov.Bar R. X(9)(A) and (14)(A) and not filing evidence of compliance or coming into compliance as required by Gov.Bar R. X(18)(A).
       Name   Attorney Number   County   State     John Francis Kirby   96037   Cuyahoga   OH     Addison Tierney Bare   96037   Franklin   OH


text:
    STATE EX REL. ARMATAS v. DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
    2018-1167
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On relator's amended motion for leave to file amended complaint. Motion granted. Respondents' motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    DAVIDSON v. STATE
    2018-1354
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    HILL v. MANDROS
    2018-1355
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. WESTIN HOTEL CINCINNATI
    2018-1357
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 determination. Cause dismissed. Relator's motion to file evidence in support denied.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
    KENNEDY, J., concurs in dismissing the cause but would grant relator's motion to file evidence.


text:
    CHUKWUANI v. CUYAHOGA CTY. DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT
    2018-1347
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN v. BMO HARRIS BANK
    2018-1446
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. CITIMORTGAGE
    2018-1462
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed. Relator's motion to include supporting evidence for original action denied as moot.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. HUMANA, INC.
    2018-1368
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur,


author: O'DONNELL, J., not participating.

text:
    MOBLEY v. O'DONNELL
    2018-1417
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
   O'DONNELL, J., not participating.


text:
    BALDWIN v. STOCK YARD BANK & TRUST CO.
    2018-1461
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    PARKER v. KEENER
    2018-1400
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    HUDSON v. OHIO GEN. ASSEMBLY
    2018-1451
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. AETNA HEALTH INS.
    2018-1453
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. WRIGHT PATTERSON CREDIT UNION
    2018-1478
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On respondents' motion to dismiss with supporting memorandum. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DeWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HAIRSTON v. DOE
    2018-1508
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    Sua sponte, cause dismissed. Request for leave to file successive habeas petition granted.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    JOHNSON v. SLOAN
    2018-1555
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE v. LAMAR
    1998-1983
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellee's motion to set execution date. Motion granted. Keith LaMar's sentence shall be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, or in his absence, by the deputy warden on Thursday, November 16, 2023, in accordance with the statutes so provided. Appellant's motion for order of relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 is denied.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE v. DRUMMOND
    2004-0586
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellant's motion for order of relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01. Motion denied.


text:
    HODGES v. ROBINSON
    2018-1480
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MERIT DECISION WITHOUT OPINION
    On S.Ct.R. 12.04 determination. Cause dismissed. Cause dismissed.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and O'DONNELL, KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
    FRENCH, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.


text:
    STATE v. IRELAND
    2017-0344
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 21, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellee's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Appellee's motion to dismiss by virtue of abatement denied. Appellant's motion to substitute a party defendant-appellee granted.
    O'DONNELL, FRENCH, and FISCHER, JJ., concur.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and DEGENARO, J., concur. The court's decision in this case was limited to a reversal of the court of appeals' judgment and a remand to the court of appeals solely for consideration of the four remaining assignments of error.
    KENNEDY and DEWINE, JJ., dissent.


text:
    MAGNUS INTERNATL. GROUP, INC. v. FORSTER
    2018-1031
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 20, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On joint motion to refer this case to mediation and stay all filing deadlines. Motion granted. The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.


text:
    STATE v. IRELAND
    2017-0344
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On appellee's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Appellee's motion to dismiss by virtue of abatement denied. Appellant's motion to substitute a party defendant-appellee granted.
    O'DONNELL, FRENCH, and FISCHER, JJ., concur.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and DEGENARO, J., concur. The court's decision in this case was limited to a reversal of the court of appeals' judgment and a remand to the court of appeals solely for consideration of the four remaining assignments of error.
    KENNEDY and DEWINE, JJ., dissent.


text:
    PIAZZA v. CUYAHOGA CTY.
    2017-1649
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellee's motion for leave to file surreply brief and proposed surreply brief. Motion denied.
   O'DONNELL, J., dissents.

DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. MILLER
    2018-0948
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellee's motion to dismiss appeal as being improvidently allowed. Motion denied.
    O'CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, J., dissent.
   DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    U.S. BANK NATL. ASSN. v. MMCO, L.L.C.
    2018-1489
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellants' motion to stay. Motion denied.


text:
    M.D. v. M.D.
    2018-1515
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellant's motion for stay. Motion denied. Appellee's motion to strike denied.
    O'DONNELL, J., would grant appellant's motion for stay.


text:
    STATE EX REL. SPEEDWAY, L.L.C. v. WRAY
    2017-0813
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 19, 2018
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION
    On relators' motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    KENNEDY and FRENCH, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN COMPLAINT AGAINST David Gussler LOMBARDI
    2018-1576
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 21, 2018
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDER
    BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF FIVE JUDGES APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO December 21, 2018In re Judicial Campaign Complaint : Case No. 2018-1576Against David Gussler Lombardi : :
    December 21, 2018
    ORDER OF THE COMMISSION OF JUDGES
   This matter came to be reviewed by a commission of five judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio on November 6, 2018, in accordance with Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) and R.C. 2701.11. The commission members are Judge Nancy A. Fuerst, Chair, Judge Deborah A. Alspach, Judge Fanon A. Rucker, Judge Eugene A. Lucci, and Judge Michael T. Hall.

Procedural History

Complainant, Christopher Grimm, filed a judicial-campaign grievance with the Board of Professional Conduct against respondent, David Gussler Lombardi, a candidate for Judge of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. After a review by a probable-cause panel of the board under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), the director of the board filed a formal complaint on October 18, 2018. The complaint alleged that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) when he knowingly or with reckless disregard distributed campaign material reading "Elect Dave Lombardi for Judge" and that the terms "elect" and "for" were not prominent as defined by Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N).

The formal complaint was heard by a panel of the board on October 29, 2018; the hearing panel issued a report of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations on November 2, 2018. In the report, the hearing panel recommended that respondent be required to a pay a fine of $1,200 for his violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) and the costs of the proceedings.

The commission was provided with the copy of the record certified by the board, including a transcript of the October 29, 2018 proceedings before the hearing panel, exhibits, and the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. On November 15, 2018, the commission conducted a telephone conference during which it deliberated on this matter. Upon review of the entire record, the commission unanimously agreed with the panel's conclusion.

COMMISSION OPINION

Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1), the commission is charged with reviewing the record to determine whether it supports the findings of the hearing panel and that there has been no abuse of discretion by that panel. Based upon review of the record certified by the hearing panel and the report issued by the hearing panel, the commission unanimously holds that there was no abuse of discretion by the hearing panel and that the record supports the panel's findings that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) as alleged in Count 1 of the complaint.

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) prohibits a judicial candidate from knowingly or with reckless disregard using the term "judge" when the judicial candidate is not a judge unless that term appears after or below the name of the judicial candidate and is accompanied by either or both of (1) the words "elect" or "vote," in prominent lettering, before the judicial candidate's name and/or (2) the word "for," in prominent lettering, between the name of the judicial candidate and the term "judge."

To establish a violation by respondent requires a finding that respondent acted "knowingly" or "with reckless disregard." The meanings of these terms are established by the Code of Judicial Conduct and case law. Specifically, Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(G) defines "knowingly" as meaning "actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances." A judicial candidate "acts `recklessly' if the result is possible and the candidate chooses to ignore the risk." In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 135 Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 85 N.E.2d 436, ¶ 11.

Evidence adduced at the hearing established that the campaign materials at issue had been previously used by respondent during his 2012 campaign. Respondent failed to determine whether the 2012 materials complied with the current requirements of the 2018 Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct in spite of having attended the two-hour course on campaign practices, finances, and ethics, which included material about the prominence of lettering. The record contains ample clear and convincing evidence and solid analysis by the hearing panel that respondent knowingly and with reckless disregard violated the provisions of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D).

Additionally, the evidence and record must establish a finding that the terms "elect" and "for" were not prominent. Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N) defines "prominent lettering" as "not less than the size of the largest type used to display the title of office or the court to which the judicial candidate seeks election."

Respondent admits that the campaign materials at issue failed to conform with the "prominent lettering" requirements of Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N), and the exhibits in the record establish the same.

Accordingly, the commission finds that clear and convincing evidence supports the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations issued on November 2, 2018, by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Furthermore, the commission finds that there has been no abuse of discretion by that panel.

The commission concurs with the recommendation of the hearing panel that respondent be required to pay a fine of $1,200 for his violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) and the costs of the proceedings.

The secretary is directed to issue a statement of costs before the commission as well as instructions regarding the payment of the fines and costs. Payment of all monetary sanctions must be made by respondent on or before February 28, 2019. This opinion is to be published by the Supreme Court reporter of decisions in the manner prescribed by Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

So Ordered.

/s/ Nancy A. Fuerst Judge Nancy A. Fuerst, Chair /s/ Deborah A. Alspach Judge Deborah A. Alspach /s/ Fanon A. Rucker Judge Fanon A. Rucker /s/ Eugene A. Lucci Judge Eugene A. Lucci /s/ Michael T. Hall Judge Michael T. Hall

This matter came to be reviewed by a commission of five judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio on November 6, 2018, in accordance with Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) and R.C. 2701.11. The commission members are Judge Nancy A. Fuerst, Chair, Judge Deborah A. Alspach, Judge Fanon A. Rucker, Judge Eugene A. Lucci, and Judge Michael T. Hall.

Procedural History

Complainant, Christopher Grimm, filed a judicial-campaign grievance with the Board of Professional Conduct against respondent, Thomas Michael McCarty, a candidate for Judge of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. After a review by a probable-cause panel of the board under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), the director of the board filed a formal complaint on October 18, 2018. The complaint alleged that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) when he knowingly or with reckless disregard distributed campaign material reading "Tom McCarty Judge" and that the term "for" was not prominent as defined by Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N).

The formal complaint was heard by a panel of the board on October 29, 2018; the hearing panel issued a report of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations on November 2, 2018 finding McCarty in violation. In the report, the hearing panel recommended that respondent be required to a pay a fine of $1,200.00 for his violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) and the costs of the proceedings.

The commission was provided with the copy of the record certified by the board, including a transcript of the October 29, 2018 proceedings before the hearing panel, exhibits, and the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. On November 15, 2018, the commission conducted a telephone conference during which it deliberated on this matter. Upon review of the entire record, the commission unanimously agreed with the panel's conclusion.

COMMISSION OPINION

Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II,(5)(D)(1), the commission is charged with reviewing the record to determine whether it supports the findings of the hearing panel and that there has been no abuse of discretion by that panel. Based upon review of the record certified by the hearing panel and the report issued by the hearing panel, the commission unanimously holds that there was no abuse of discretion by the hearing panel and that the record supports the panel's findings that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) as alleged in Count 1 of the complaint.

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) prohibits a judicial candidate from knowingly or with reckless disregard using the term "judge" when the judicial candidate is not a judge unless that term appears after or below the name of the judicial candidate and is accompanied by either or both of (1) the words "elect" or "vote," in prominent lettering, before the judicial candidate's name and/or (2) the word "for," in prominent lettering, between the name of the judicial candidate and the term "judge."

To establish a violation by respondent requires a finding that respondent acted "knowingly" or "with reckless disregard." The meanings of these terms are established by the Code of Judicial Conduct and case law. Specifically, Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(G) defines "knowingly" as meaning "actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances." A judicial candidate "acts `recklessly' if the result is possible and the candidate chooses to ignore the risk." In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 135 Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 85 N.E.2d 436, ¶ 11.

Evidence adduced at the hearing established that the campaign materials at issue had been previously used by respondent during his 2009 campaign. Respondent failed to determine whether the 2009 materials complied with the current requirements of the 2018 Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct in spite of having attended the required two-hour course on campaign practices, finances, and ethics, which included material about the prominence of lettering. The record contains ample clear and convincing evidence and solid analysis by the hearing panel that respondent knowingly and with reckless disregard violated the provisions of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D).

Additionally, the evidence and record must establish a finding that the term "for" was not prominent. Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N) defines "prominent lettering" as "not less than the size of the largest type used to display the title of office or the court to which the judicial candidate seeks election."

Respondent admits that the campaign materials at issue failed to conform with the "prominent lettering" requirements of Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(N), and the exhibits in the record establish the same.

Accordingly, the commission finds that clear and convincing evidence supports the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations issued on November 2, 2018 by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Furthermore, the commission finds that there has been no abuse of discretion by that panel.

The commission concurs with the recommendation of the hearing panel that respondent be required to pay a fine of $1,200 for his violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(D) and the costs of the proceedings.

The secretary is directed to issue a statement of costs before the commission as well as instructions regarding the payment of the fines and costs. Payment of all monetary sanctions must be made by respondent on or before February 28, 2019. This opinion is to be published by the Supreme Court reporter of decisions in the manner prescribed by Gov.Bar.R. V(17)(D)(2).

So ordered.

/s/ Nancy A. Fuerst Judge Nancy A. Fuerst, Chair /s/ Deborah A. Alspach Judge Deborah A. Alspach /s/ Fanon A. Rucker Judge Fanon A. Rucker /s/ Eugene A. Lucci Judge Eugene A. Lucci /s/ Michael T. Hall Judge Michael T. Hall


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. THOMAS
    2018-1256
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 24, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, Mark Alan Thomas, Attorney Registration No. 0037922, last known business address in St. Clairsville, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file affidavit of compliance on or before November 5, 2018.


text:
    STATE v. RYAN
    2018-1739
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 24, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellant's motion for stay of court of appeals' opinion. Motion denied.
   DEGENARO, J., not participating.


text:
    DAYTON BAR ASSN. v. WILLIAMS
    2018-1255
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 24, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, David Lee Williams, Attorney Registration No. 0077623, last known business address in Huber Heights, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file affidavit of compliance on or before November 5, 2018.


text:
    STATE EX REL. ZANDER v. JUDGE, SUMMIT CTY. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    2018-1198
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 24, 2018
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING
    On appellant's motion to strike appellee's brief for want of timely service pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(B). Motion denied. Appellant may file a reply brief within 14 days.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CAMINO
    2018-1251
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    December 24, 2018
    DISCIPLINARY CASE
    Sua sponte, Paula Enza Camino, Attorney Registration No. 0056155, last known business address in Highland Heights, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file affidavit of compliance on or before November 5, 2018.