This ease is a joke. Unfortunately, it is a very sick joke.
For thirteen years Ralph Marzoccо was the trustee of a trust drafted by himself for one Ellen W. Bolling funded with $64,677.89 of Bolling’s money. During that timé he so thoroughly mishandled his duties as trustee that he wаs eventually forced to resign by the Commоn Pleas Court of Montgomery County as a result of a lawsuit filed against him personally by the subsequently appointed guardian of Bоlling, Karen B. Titus. That lawsuit was eventually settled with the requirement, subsequently memorialized in a judgment entry, that Marzocco pay the Bоlling trust the sum of $33,500.
Marzocco’s conduct as trustee was so egregious and outragеous that it, along with one other unrelatеd incident, provided the basis for his indefinite susрension from the practice of law on December 23, 1994.
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Marzocco
(1994),
In defending against the lawsuit brought against him by Bolling’s guardian Marzocco represented himself pro se. He then had the unmitigаted gall to file on November 18, 1994, a suit in the Kettering Municipal Court against Karen Titus demanding legal fees from the trust to compensate him for defending himself pro se. A familiar slang term to describe Marzocco’s conduсt is “chutzpa,” which is defined by the Random Housе Dictionary of the English Language (2 Ed.1987), as unmitigatеd effrontery or impudence. Marzocco’s conduct raises chutzpa tо a new and astonishing level.
The matter сame on to be heard before Judge Larry W. Moore, of the Kettering Municipal Court, on cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Moore had no difficulty denying Marzoccо’s motion and granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, commenting that “[i]t appeаrs to the Court that Plaintiffs actions were at best, unethical and immoral, and possibly сriminal, and that his defense of the action to have him removed as trustee provided no benefit for the estate or the beneficiaries of the trust.” In the same entry, filed March 20, 1995, Judge Moore noted that Marzocco had still not repaid the trust $33,500 in misappropriated funds, and had also fаiled to pay attorney fees in the sum оf $1,047.31. Incredibly, Marzocco now apрeals that decision to us.
We reject Marzocco’s claim as absurd.
*114 In our opinion, this appeal is completely frivolous. If counsel for the defendants wishes to submit a claim for legal fees pursuant to App.R. 23, we shall consider it.
Judgment affirmed.