Thrower v. Bolden
2012 Ohio 3956
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Thrower, pro se, sued Bolden and related entities for theft of funds, negligence, fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
- Bolden allegedly used a power of attorney to withdraw about $9,000 from Thrower’s Charter One account (2003–2005).
- Bolden admitted using a power of attorney but claimed withdrawals were at Thrower’s direction; funds were dispersed to third parties.
- Charter One moved for summary judgment, contending claims were time-barred and that it had no duty to investigate a holder of a power of attorney; motion granted.
- Case referred to arbitration for remaining parties; arbitration panel found Thrower did not prove his case; Thrower failed to timely appeal under Local Rule 29, so judgment entered on the award.
- Trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award and summary judgment for Charter One were upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the referral to arbitration violated Thrower’s right to a jury trial | Thrower contends he was denied jury trial by arbitration referral. | Court permitted arbitration under governing local rules; right to jury trial preserved by appeal procedures. | Assignment rejected; arbitration referral proper and no right to jury trial waived. |
| Whether the arbitration award was properly challenged | Thrower argues there was insufficient evidence supporting the award. | No timely appeal under Loc.R. 29; failure to appeal precludes appellate attack on the award. | Arbitration challenges waived; award stood and judgment entered. |
| Whether Charter One’s summary judgment was correct on time-bar and duty grounds | Throws claims against Charter One were valid and within limitations. | Claims about checks barred by 3-year statute; bank owed no duty to investigate power of attorney; | Charter One entitled to judgment; checks time-barred and no duty to investigate valid POA. |
| Whether the reconsideration motion was properly denied | Reconsideration should have been granted to address new materials. | Untimely, non-compliant materials; no error in denial. | denial of reconsideration affirmed. |
| Whether Thrower was deprived of video-recording rights at proceedings | Motion to video record was denied, violating due process. | Live recorders not required; court reporter available; rule complied. | Assignment without merit; rights preserved via available court reporter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mattlin Holdings, L.L.C. v. First City Bank, 189 Ohio App.3d 213 (Ohio App.3d 2010) (three-year statute of limitations for UCC 1304.30 claims)
- Uma Gupta, M.D. v. Lincoln Natl. Life Ins. Co., 2005-Ohio-6473 (10th Dist. 2005) (no duty to investigate third-party conduct when relying on valid power of attorney)
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (8th Dist. 1996) (pro se litigants held to procedural requirements)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment burden shifting; Civ.R. 56 standard)
- State ex rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 77 Ohio St.3d 190 (1996) (clean standard for summary judgment; de novo review)