BRYON HOLBROOK v. MARILYN BENSON
Case No. 2013CA00045
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
December 2, 2013
[Cite as Holbrook v. Benson, 2013-Ohio-5307.]
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2012CV03394. JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded.
For Plaintiff-Appellant: SANDRA K. CHESHIRE, Cheshire Law Office, 931 North Main Street, Suite 102, North Canton, OH 44720.
For Defendant-Appellee: WILLIAM DEMSKY, 54 Federal Avenue, NE, Massillon, OH 44646; LARRY SLAGLE, 2859 Aaronwood Avenue, NE, Massillon, OH 44646.
{¶1} Appellant Bryon Holbrook appeals a judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court disqualifying his attorney, Michela Huth, from representing him in the instant case. Appellee is Marilyn Benson.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant and аppellee entered into an oral lease regarding property in Navarre, Ohio, in July of 2011. Appellant filed the instant action on October 30, 2012, alleging that hе had made improvements to the house and was entitled to reimbursement or credit for rent. Appellee counterclaimed seeking unpaid rent of $600.00 per month from August 1, 2011.
{¶3} Attorney Michela Huth filed a motion to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel for appellant on October 30, 2012. The motion was grantеd on November 1, 2012.
{¶4} The parties appeared before the court for a hearing on February 19, 2013. At that hearing, it became apparent that Attorney Huth was involved in a romantic relationship with appellant and was living with him in the house that was the subject of the case. At the hearing, counsel for appellee informеd the court that Huth will be a material witness in the case because she is living in the home. Huth acknowledged that appellant was her boyfriend and that she was living in the homе, but represented that she had not witnessed any of the repairs that were the subject of the complaint or the counterclaim.
{¶5} The trial court disqualified Huth from representing appellant. The court ruled in pertinent part:
{¶6} “Since the main issue in this case is the extent of the repairs made to the home before and аfter Plaintiff moved in, it is obvious that Plaintiff‘s counsel, [Michela Huth] may be a material witness to the case. Equally important is the fact that Attorney [Huth] is in a romantic relationshiр with Plaintiff, who will undoubtedly be the main witness in the case. The fact that Attorney [Huth] is both living with the Plaintiff and occupying the premises of the dispute leaves Plaintiff in a vulnerable pоsition, especially if the relationship doesn‘t last. In addition, Attorney [Huth‘s] judgment may be impaired by the depth and quality of the relationship, a situation which could be detrimеntal to Plaintiff.” Judgment Entry, March 1, 2013, as corrected by nunc pro tunc judgment of March 5, 2013.
{¶7} Appellant assigns a single error on appeal:
{¶8} “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISQUALIFIED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BRYON HOLBROOK‘S TRIAL COUNSEL (MICHELA HUTH).”
{¶9} An order disqualifying a civil trial counsel is a final order that is immediately appealablе pursuant to
{¶11} Under
{¶12}
{¶13} Under
{¶15} Similarly, in the instant case the court did not make any factual or legal findings relevant to the required analysis for determining whether Michela Huth was a necessary witness in the instant case. Appellee presented no evidеnce as to what her testimony might be, and merely represented to the court in a conclusory fashion that she might be a witness because she lives on the subject рroperty and is involved in a romantic relationship with appellant. The court did not make any finding that she was a necessary witness, but found only that she may be a material witness in the case. The trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying Huth without making the proper inquiry and findings that her testimony was admissible and necessary. The record of the hearing reflects no facts as to what her testimony would be if called as a witness.
{¶16} Further, the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying Huth on the basis that she is romantically involved with her сlient.
{¶17} Finally, appellee argues that Huth has a proprietary interest in the property by virtue of living оn the property. This basis for disqualification was not cited by the court as grounds for disqualification, nor was any evidence presented at the hearing other than thе fact that she lives on the subject property with appellant.
{¶18} The assignment of error is sustained.
{¶19} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proсeedings according to law, consistent with this opinion. Costs assessed to appellee.
By: Baldwin, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. JOHN W. WISE
CRB/rad
BRYON HOLBROOK v. MARILYN BENSON
CASE NO. 2013CA00045
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Holbrook v. Benson, 2013-Ohio-5307.]
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is reversed and remanded. Costs assessed to appellee.
HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
HON. JOHN W. WISE