IN RE: GUARDIANSHIPS OF: I.T.A. AND A.A.
CASE NOS. 11 BE 27, 11 BE 29
STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
March 26, 2012
2012-Ohio-1689
Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Mary DeGenaro
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, of Belmont County, Ohio, Case Nos. 99GD594; 99GD593. JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
For Appellant: Nawaz Ahmed, Pro se, #A404-511, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 15802 State Route 104, North, Chillicothe, OH 45601
{¶1} In these two combined appeals, pro se Appellant Nawaz Ahmed is attempting to appeal over 30 orders and judgments filed in the guardianship cases of his two minor sons. The guardianships of the estate were created in 1999 after Appellant murdered his wife and three others. The guardianships were necessary to protect the insurance proceeds that the boys received due to their mother‘s murder. Appellant filed a previous appeal in the guardianship cases and lost that appeal. Appellant is now attempting to appeal virtually every trial court decision in the guardianships entered since 2004. He contends that he should have been notified of the successor guardianship appointment as well as all subsequent events in the guardianships; that all orders in the guardianships after the appointment of the successor guardian are void; that his brother should have been appointed as the successor guardian; and that the probate court had no authority to act after one of the boys reached his 18th birthday. Appellant‘s arguments have either been waived or are not supported by the law or the record. We overrule all of Appellant‘s arguments in the two appeals, and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Background
{¶2} Appellant appeals the decisions of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, in two separate guardianships of the estate. Appellant is the natural father of I.T.A., born Feb. 23, 1993, and A.A., born Sept. 1, 1995. The guardianships of the estate were set up in 1999 for the two boys after Appellant murdered his wife (the boys’ mother) and three other family members. He was later sentenced to death for the murders. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme
{¶3} The main asset of the guardianship estates was the mother‘s $500,000 life insurance policy, split equally between the two boys. Appellant had previously challenged the validity of the guardianships and was rebuffed by both the probate court and this Court. In re Guardianship of Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 56, 2003-Ohio-5463, reconsideration denied by 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 56, 2003-Ohio-6390, appeal not allowed by 101 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2004-Ohio-1293, 805 N.E.2d 539.
{¶4} On July 19, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in the guardianship of I.T.A. (Appeal No. 11-BE-27). In it, Appellant referenced 18 judgments or orders of the probate court beginning with an order dated July 23, 2004. This judgment entry appointed Grace Hoffman as the successor guardian to I.T.A. Neither this order nor the subsequent 16 orders listed in the notice of appeal were directly appealed in the time allotted by
{¶5} Also on July 19, 2011, Appellant filed a motion in probate court in the guardianship of I.T.A. titled “Motion to Order the Guardian to Provide a Full and Complete Copy of her Files about this Guardianship and also file the same with the Probate Court ASAP.” The primary goal of the motion was to induce the probate court to vacate all orders subsequent to February 22, 2011. The stated rationale was that I.T.A. had reached the age of majority on February 22, 2011, and Appellant argued that the probate court had no jurisdiction over the case after that date. Appellant also presented various claims and accusations against the successor guardian.
{¶6} In the guardianship case of A.A., Appellant filed a motion in the probate court seeking to vacate all decisions made by the successor guardian or the court from July 23, 2004 to the present, asking for an accounting of the guardianship, requesting the guardian to post a bond, and requesting that fees to the guardian be denied. This motion was filed with the above other motions on July 19, 2011.
{¶7} On August 15, 2011, Appellant filed an appeal in the guardianship of A.A. (Appeal No. 11-BE-29), even though the probate court had not yet ruled on his July 19th motion. He appealed 14 different court orders, again starting with the order
{¶8} The trial court overruled both of Appellant‘s motions to vacate on August 19, 2011. Appellant later amended both of his notices of appeal to include the August 19, 2011, judgment entries.
{¶9} The only final appealable orders that may be reviewed at this time are the judgment entries filed on August 19, 2011, overruling the two motions to vacate filed by Appellant on July 19, 2011.
Issues on Appeal
{¶10} Appellant has filed two very similar briefs on appeal. Although Appellant has listed a variety of assignments of error, the arguments supporting each assignment of error are rambling, repetitive, difficult to decipher, and at times incoherent. He refers to documents that are not in the record; he personally attacks the guardian and the trial court while making his arguments; and he has violated numerous procedural rules on appeal. We will address a number of these preliminary matters before we attempt to glean the substance of any issues that may be discerned from Appellant‘s filings on appeal.
{¶11} Appellant has been previously warned against using court filings as a forum for personal attacks against the guardian, the attorneys in the case, and the trial judge: “These types of personal attacks are, of course, not legal arguments and
{¶12} Although we are aware that Appellant is acting pro se, he is nevertheless bound by the same rules and procedures as litigants who retain counsel. Meyers v. First National Bank of Cincinnati, 3 Ohio App.3d 209, 210, 444 N.E.2d 412 (1st Dist.1981). This extends to the rules governing the content, size and parameters of the briefs filed on appeal. Many of those parameters are found in
{¶13} Hence, we would ordinarily simply dismiss these appeals due to the irregularities mentioned above. However, we will grant Appellant the courtesy of briefly addressing the main themes that we believe he is raising in his briefs. Those themes are: Appellant‘s frustration with not being notified about the successor guardianship appointment or the events occurring after that appointment; Appellant‘s belief that all orders issued on or after July 23, 2004, in both guardianships are void and should be vacated because the appointment of the successor guardian was invalid; his contention that his brother should have been appointed successor guardian; and his belief that all court orders issued in the guardianship of I.T.A. after February 23, 2011 (the date the boy turned 18) are void because the guardianship ended on that date.
{¶14} The judgments under review in this appeal are the two entries issued on August 19, 2011. The motions were primarily
{¶15} It is axiomatic that a
{¶16} Appellant also used the July 19, 2011, motions to call for an accounting of the guardianships. Appellant did not file exceptions to any of the interim periodic accountings in either estate as required by
{¶17} Appellant further used the July 19, 2011, motions to attack the validity of the successor guardian‘s authority. Appellant claims that he did not receive notice of the proceedings regarding the successor guardian, and for that reason, the appointment of the successor guardian should be voided. Appellant appears to be relying on the requirement in
{¶18} In addition,
{¶19} We also note that notice under
{¶20} Appellant argues that he should be permitted to appeal all judgments entered as far back as 2004, because he was not notified of the guardian‘s activities or the court‘s filings. He believes he should have received notice of every court order in these guardianship cases because he is the natural parent of the children. He provides no legal basis for that conclusion. There is nothing in
{¶21} Appellant contends that Juanita Lewis was never officially removed as guardian; that Grace Hoffman somehow unilaterally imposed herself as successor guardian; and that the appointment of the successor guardian was never journalized. There is no basis in the record to support Appellant‘s claims. On July 12, 2004, the prior guardian Juanita Lewis filed a motion to appoint a successor guardian because Ms. Lewis had a terminal illness. Ms. Hoffman applied to be the successor guardian. The court held a hearing on July 23, 2004, and Grace Hoffman was duly appointed as successor guardian. The probate court‘s journal reflects that Attorney Hoffman was appointed successor guardian on July 23, 2004. The record contains all the proper documentation to establish that Ms. Lewis resigned and Ms. Hoffman was appointed as successor.
{¶22} Appellant contends that his brother, Ilyas Ahmed, should have been appointed as successor guardian due to provisions in Appellant‘s will. Appellant made a similar argument in his first appeal of the guardianships and lost that appeal. In re Guardianship of Ahmed, supra, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 56, 2003-Ohio-5463, ¶10. We give the same response now that we gave in that case: ” ‘It is well-established that an order appointing a guardian is a final order from which an appeal may be taken.’ In re Lajoie (Mar. 31, 1998), 6th Dist. No. L-96-408, at 5. Since Ahmed did not directly appeal that decision, he has waived the right to raise those issues at a later time. Dayton Women‘s Health Center v. Enix (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 67, 70, 555 N.E.2d 956.” Id. at ¶11. It is also apparent that Appellant‘s brother Ilyas Ahmed never applied to be guardian pursuant to the requirements of
{¶23} Appellant‘s next argument centers around the probate court‘s continuing involvement with the guardianship of I.T.A. after he reached his 18th birthday on February 23, 2011. Appellant contends that, pursuant to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434, 2007-Ohio-4555, the probate court‘s jurisdiction ended on that day and that all of the court‘s decisions, orders and judgments after that date are invalid and void. It is true that a guardianship predicated on the ward‘s minor status ends when the ward reaches the age of majority. Id. at syllabus; see also
{¶24} Finally, Appellant argues that the trial court somehow failed to supplement the record on appeal in Case No. 11 BE 27 (guardianship of I.T.A.) pursuant to
{¶25} In conclusion, there are no meritorious issues raised in these two appeals. Appellant has waived all possible issues regarding the judgments or orders entered prior to August 19, 2011, by not filing direct appeals of those orders. Appellant improperly attempted to use
Donofrio, J., concurs.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.