Union Bank Co. v. North Carolina Furniture Express, L.L.C.

al., Appellees, et BANK COMPANY UNION v. EXPRESS, L.L.C., al., Appellants. et CAROLINA FURNITURE

NORTH Servicing, L.P., Appellant, BAC Home Loans al., Appellees. et Smith Express, v. North Carolina Furniture as Union Bank Co. [Cite L.L.C., 2010-Ohio-4176.] Ohio, Appeals of Court of District, Auglaize County. Third Nos. 2-10-01 and 2-10-02. Sept. Decided Newland, L. Reeves and Randy appellees Jeffrey Sarah N. for Smith and Kandi Smith. Moul,

John F. for appellee Auglaize County Treasurer. Jerry M. Johnson and Christine M. for Bollinger, appellee Union Bank Company. Katterheinrich,

Thomas J. for Bank. appellee Minster Whitacre, A. Laura Kathryn Jason C. Infante and M. Eyster, appellant L.P., BAC Home Loans f.k.a. Servicing, Countrywide Home Servicing, Loans L.P. Judge.

Preston, Appellant-defendant, L.P., BAC Home Servicing, Loans f.k.a. Country- {¶ 1} (“BAC”), wide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. appeals Auglaize County the Court Common Pleas judgments, which vacated BAC’s foreclosure action and denied motions to consolidate and party-defendant. substitute BAC as a For the follow, reasons that we affirm. This case involves two separate foreclosure actions in Auglaize filed

{¶ 2} County Court of Common sought Pleas that on judgments certain notes and mortgages encumbering estate, the same parcel commonly real known (“the Street, Bremen, South Franklin New property”). The facts of this 13, case are not in largely dispute. 2002, On November Jeffrey Smith and Kandi Smith, who were members of North Express, L.L.C., Carolina Furniture execut- aed note in favor of Mortgage SIB a Corp., Jersey corporation, New and (“MERS”) in mortgage favor of Mortgage Registration Systems, Electronic Inc. solely $141,000. as nominee for SIB Mortgage Corp., for The mortgage was subsequently Auglaize County recorded Recorder’s Office on November 2002. later, years 19, 2007, Several January on the Smiths executed another mortgage $30,000.

note and in favor of appellee Minster Bank for This was recorded in the Auglaize County Recorder’s Office on January 2007. Then, 5, 2007, on March the Smiths executed three separate mortgages notes and appеllee $100,000,$25,000, favor of Bank Company $24,500, Union for and Office on County Recorder’s subsequently Auglaize which were recorded March 2007.1 23, 2008, Bank for foreclosure Union filed July On foreclosure”). (“the 2008 case No. 2008 CY 0267

property, designated which was L.L.C., Express, Bank North Carolina Furniture complaint, In the Union listed Treasurer, and Smiths, Bank, SIB, County the Auglaize Minster Administration, an interest possibly having Inc. as defendants Entrust to the According All were served with notice. named defendants 30, 2008, on November record, July on and SIB was servеd MERS was served to the timely complaint. Bank and the filed answers 2008. Minster Smiths defendants judgment against Bank filed a motion for default Union MERS, SIB, Administration, Inc., The motion Entrust on March and matter, including was sent to all named defendants judgment on judgment The trial court Union Bank a default granted MERS and SIB. 10, ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍2009, had “been served specifically stating legally March the defendants and appearance and that Defendants are default for answer with summons equity redemption to said and the premises therefore no intеrest and ha[ve] in Plaintiffs shall be Complaint of said Defendants the real estate described 11, 2009, off, barred, March Bank filed a forever cut and foreclosed.” On Bank, Smiths, motion for Minster summary judgment against summary motion for Auglaize County Similarly, copy Treasurer. matter, including was sent to all named defendants summary granted SIB. On March the trial court the motion for providing priority and issued a of foreclosure the lien Treasurer, Bank, Auglaize County was as follows: the Minster Bank. then Union 2009, thereafter, 12, shortly May filed for on bankruptcy Smiths

{¶ 6} 9, 2009, a causing stayed. bankruptcy the matter to be On June court issued Bank, stay relief from and abandonment for Union which allowed the 2008 continue, 31, 2009, July property foreclosure matter to effective on and the was 1, However, a scheduled for sheriffs sale on October 2009. due to notice sale defendants, received or served on all the sale was cancelled and being party 4, for rescheduled December 2009. on During right bankruptcy, this time and after the Smiths hаd filed for

{¶ 7} SIB) 1, 2009, a (acting solely assigned appellant June MERS as nominee for BAC sign Only respect mortgages Bank did the Smiths 1. with to their notes and in favor of Union L.L.C., individually. Express, With as both members for North Carolina Furniture executed, respect mortgages signed only in their individual to the other notes and the Smiths capacity. 28, 2009, BAC filed a property. Consequently, August on County Court of Auglaize for foreclosure complaint (“the Pleas, 2009 foreclo- designated which was case No. CY Common sure”). preliminary judiciаl report BAC filed a Along complaint, a and all interests in the representation what believed be showing Smiths, Bank, Bank, In its BAC named the Minster Union property.2 complaint, Auglaize County having possible and the Treasurer as defendants a Only Minster Bank and Union Bank filed answers to the com- property. Thereafter, 7, 2009, plaint.3 judgment on October BAC filed a motion for default nonanswering parties, day, and that same the trial court issued a judgment entry granting and decree foreclosure BAC’s motion for default listing priority following the lien on the order: Treasurer, BAC, Bank, Auglaize County Minster and then Union Bank. result, 9, 2009, As a Bank a October Union filed motion contra to motion for a and motion to dismiss BAC’s the 2009 action based on the existence of the 2008 foreclosure action. 16, 2009, Additionally, joint on October Union Bank and Minster Bank a filed action, motion to vacate the of default in the judgment entry 2009 foreclosure they because had not been to respond afforded sufficient time to BAC’s motion before the judgment entry granted. foreclosure had been 21, In response to the existence of the 2008 foreclosure on October (1) motions, BAC filed several a which included motion to substitute (2) defendant defendant motion to set aside the default- (3) entered the 2008 foreclosure stay motion to judgment entry pending 2008 foreclosure default resolution of the motion to set aside the judgment entry, motion to consolidate cases 2008 alternative, 0267 and 2009 or in CV CV a motion for leave to file answer to the 2008 complaint and cross-claim.4 Union Bank a response filed all motions in opposing BAC’s the 2008 foreclosure case. actions, In both the foreclosure the trial court set all the motions for a Thereafter, which

hearing, was held on November 2009. on December parties hearing preliminary 2. As noted at the final on November neither the judicial report supplemental judicial report nor the showed the 2008 foreclosure action as pending аgainst answer, stated, "FURTHERMORE, Defendant, specifically In its Bank The Union Company premises by Complaint Bank admits it has an interest in the described virtue of a pending Auglaize Foreclosure Count Common Pleas Court Case No.: 2008 CV 0267 Company July file The Union Bank on 2008.” proceedings, 4. BAC filed its motions in the 2008 foreclosure while Union Bank and Minster proceedings. Bank filed their the motions in 2009 foreclosure 2008 and the issues in both the judgment entry addressing trial court issued a cases, consolidating that it stating but was specifically 2009 foreclosure 3, 2009 than at the November any purposes presented cases for other the issues part trial court vacated judgment entry, in its hearing. Consequently, action had been action, portion foreclosure of the citing 2009 foreclosure 60(A). Nevertheless, the trial court found error” within Civ.R. “clerical Smiths, thus, the 2009 it allowed against there had been no error as In stand, individually. action to but the Smiths again only addition, on the basis of the trial court dismissed the 2009 foreclosure motion consolidate and motion to substitute judicata res and denied the to defendant BAC as a the 2008 foreclosure party-defendant of the doctrine of acquired property by operation BAC had not pendens. lis of our appeals assignments BAC now and raises four of error. For ease

discussion, assignments together. we also elect to address all of BAC’s of error

Assignment of Error No. I The trial court expressly abused its discretion when failed to rule appellant’s aрply proper motion to set aside default and failed to ruling standard for on such a motion. of Error No. II

Assignment The trial court abused its discretion when it vacated the October 60(A). to judgment entry pursuant case Number 2009 CV 0312 CIV.R. of Error No. Ill Assignment reprioritized The trial court abused its discretion when it the liens property subject to case Numbers 2008 CV 0267 and 2009 CV 0312. Assignment of Error No. IV trial court discretion when it found that BAC did erred abused its assignment by not obtain an interest when it its obtained of the Lis Pendens doctrine. operation trial court’s Essentially, argues following that the decisions (1) on the motion to judgment entry ruling

December were erroneous: its (2) substitute, failing rule on its motion set aside the 60(B), vacating to Civ.R. of the 2009 foreclosure pursuant part in the 2008 foreclosure action. reprioritization the liens 544 above, motion to substitute the trial court first denied the As stated 13}

{¶ any a because it did not obtain party-defendant BAC as result, a trial court vacated it its from MERS. As assignment when obtained banks) and failed to (only of thе 2009 foreclosure part 60(B). to Civ.R. judgment pursuant address BAC’s motion to set aside the default law, that the trial court applicable the record and the we believe reviewing After 3, judgment entry. in its December 2009 rendering did not abuse its discretion First, a party- we will address the motion to substitute BAC as governs foreclosure action. Civ.R. ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍25 defendant for MERS the 2008 25(C) “In of Specifically, provides, of Civ.R. cases parties. substitution interest, or may by original party, transfer of the action be continued to whom the interest is upon person unless the court motion directs the joined with the original party.” transferred to be substituted the action or trial parties discretionary decision of whether to allow a substitution of is a may only court and a transfer of interest. Ahlrichs granted upon be (1987), result, Corp. App.3d v. Tri-Tex 41 Ohio 534 N.E.2d 1231. As this court uses an standard of review when whether a determining abuse-of-discretion trial court erred with to a motion to substitute to Civ.R. 25. respect pursuant Ciemins, 90698, 2008-Ohio-5994, Argent Mtge. Co. v. 8th Dist. No. 2008 WL Pierce, 4949848, 9, (1993), Young Lynch, v. Merrill Fenner & Smith 88 citing 623 N.E.2d 94. An abuse of discretion constitutes more than an error of implies unreasonably, arbitrarily, court acted (1983), 217, 219, unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore St.3d OBR standard, applying 450 N.E.2d 1140. When the abuse-of-discretion a review ing may simply court substitute its for that of the trial court. Id. assignment typically While an transfers the lien of the on the brief, mortgage, acknowledged reply described as BAC its take, assignee can and the can assignor give, only currently by the interest held stated, assignor. R.C. 5301.31. With thаt it is clear under the facts this thus, case that BAC never obtained an interest in the property; could not have Here, party-defendant been substituted as the 2008 foreclosure action. with respect to the 2008 foreclosure the date that last party was served 28, 2009, with notice January was on which was almost six months before Next, 11, 2009, from purported assignment MERS to BAC. on March the trial court judgment entry foreclosing issued default MERS on its interest in the property. again, entered-against Once this default was MERS purported assignment almost three months from MERS to BAC before judgment against occurred. The effect of this default resulted in MERS MERS having “no interest in and to said and the of said premises equity redemption Complaint Defendants the real estate described Plaintiffs shall be forever Nevertheless, filed off, barred, according to the documents cut and foreclosed.” MERS, its interest assigned from assignment BAC evidence already as a result of the entered Consequently, BAC on June assigned whеn BAC was MERS’s judgment against in the property. did not receive a viable interest property on June 2002-Ohio-2703, 31, 2002), Quill 2nd Dist. No. (May See v. Maddox ¶ 1150834, 2 that it had an (mortgagee’s assignee at failed to establish WL the court interest was foreclosed property, mortgagee’s interest the acquire which could no more mortgagee assigned assignee, before its interest to held). Thus, trial court to have than it was reasonable for the mortgagee its party-defendant given the motion to BAC as a for denied substitute property. lack of interest the it did argues BAC that the trial court erred because Additionally,

{¶ 16} judgment. not the Automatic standard to its motion for relief from apply GTE Industries, (1976), 146, Elec., 47 Automatic Inc. v. ARC Inc. Ohio St.2d See GTE 150, 86, In that the trial court particular, 1 351 N.E.2d 113. BAC claims O.O.3d 60(B) addressing that not its never ruled on its Civ.R. motion. BAC claims However, case, light in this of our discussion particular motion was erroneous. above, any and apply there would have been no need to address the motion standing to the motion for relief from because BAC lacked to judgment standard challenge judgment against the default entered MERS. 60(B) party legal representative” Civ.R. allows “a or his to vacate “(1) the has a judgment upon successfully demonstrating party

default or claim to if the is present granted; party meritorious defense relief is 60(B)(1) (5); through entitled to under one of the stated in Civ.R. grounds relief * * added.) (Emphasis the motion is made within a reasonable time *.” Elec., Inc., 150, 86, 47 Ohio at 1 O.O.3d 351 N.E.2d 113. GTE Automatic St.2d However, nor a because it was not party legal representative BAC was neither action and was not allowed to be original included 2008 foreclosure substituted as a for MERS. Cent. Ohio Receivables Co. v. party-defendant 87AP-1185, 20, 1988), at (Sept. Huston 8th Dist. No. 1988 WL *2-3 (holding assignee standing challenge that an did not have a default assignor). Accordingly, standing challenge entered its BAC lacked entered its MERS in the 2008 foreclosure assignor action, trial court did not its discretion when it failed to rule on its abuse motion. to vacate the 2009 respect With tо the court’s decision we note that the trial court did not vacate the 2009 foreclosure rather, only the court vacated of the action entirety; portion

action in further detail to an interest in the As we will discuss pertained had an below, brought they who were because dismissing parties after (i.e., Bank), only aspect Bank and Minster property interest in the the default the 2009 foreclosure action that remained was Nevertheless, part trial court’s decision to vacate we find Smiths. an of discretion. the 2009 foreclosure action was not abuse all, already had been First of since MERS’s interest to the of the 2009 foreclosure BAC did obtain prior filing foreclosed assigned when it was from MERS. Moreover, Thus, brought could not have a foreclosure action at all. for typically parties grounds foreclosure action between the same is pending Loan, Avco Fin. Inc. assignee’s complaint. abatement or dismissal of Servs. (1987), 1378; High 520 N.E.2d Point Assn. v. App.3d Hale (Nоv. *3; 30, 1995), at Pochatek 8th Dist. Nos. 68000 and 1995 WL Invests., L.L.C., 523, 2008-Ohio-2815, Bates v. Postulate trial court to Accordingly, N.E.2d was reasonable dismiss based on the fact that the 2008 ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍foreclosure action was still Therefore, pending although at the time BAC filed its 2009 foreclosure action. may we agree grounds vacating court’s most the 2009 foreclosure the trial court’s decision was reasonable under the circum stances and was not an of discretion. abuse above, Finally, as mentioned the trial denial of despite сourt’s the

motion to substitute and its decision to vacate the 2009 foreclosure action as it property, related to the the trial court did add BAC as a lien entry holder in the December 2009 and a judgment stated BAC had lien the claims that fourth-priority against property. BAC this decision was also an abuse of discretion. BAC claims that the trial court Specifically, because that it recognized against had a lien the when it added BAC to the list, clearly 2008-foreclosure lien holder the triаl court abused its discretion when holder, it as fourth recognized being only priority despite the lien the fact lien, that it had been it assigned given MERS’s which would have the first- Overall, lien holder to priority the BAC claims that the trial court recognized could not have that it had an interest in the property without that it was also the lien first-priority acknowledge holder. While we the trial court obviously recognized property, disagree BAC had the we argument with BAC’s that this interest had to come from first-priority- MERS’s lien-holder status to pursuant mortgage. fact that trial court Despite vacated most of the 2009

foreclosure the trial court found that judgment BAC’s decree only foreclosure were valid but as the Smiths: between BAC and “[A]s Smith, Note, recovery Promissory Defendants BAC should obtain of its “ right cause of action. The judgment ‘The to on the note is one assigned.” right legal action. is other is mortgage to foreclose a is another cause of One —the ” 2008-Ohio-2959, v. equitable.’ Hopkins, Third Bank Fifth ¶ 17, 1977), 65, 15, 9th Corp. (Aug. Fed. Ins. v. Simon quoting Deposit 894 N.E.2d merely security is “mortgage No. 198974. This is because Dist. WL Id., 2nd Dist. quoting Hotopp, for a debt and is not the debt itself.” Gevedon 20673, 2005-Ohio-4597, appellate 27. As another court No. 2005 WL explained: obligation, by

A is a form of secured debt where the evidenced mortgage note, by by property, accomplished is secured the transfer of an interest mortgage of a breach of condition of the delivery mortgage Upon deed. It at sue in agreement, mortgagee may, option, has concurrent remedies. foreclose, note; or, at an action equity directly bring sue law (1937), 1, 2[, ejectment, & v. Mercurio 24 Ohio Law Abs. Equity Savings Loan Thus, 7 O.O. suit on the note was not foreclosed of the disposition 540]. * * previous action *. (Dec. 30, 1982), L. Broadview S. & Co. v. Crow 8th Dist. Nos.

45002, 1982 2658, at WL *3. above, explained As we BAC did not obtain an interest in the property it

because the had obtained from had foreclosed. already been Nevertheless, judgment the default entered in the 2009 Smiths note, gave foreclosure action BAC a lien on the so had a judgment right BAC still collect its unsecured lien out of the from the real proceeds sale However, estate. BAC’s judgment superior lien was not to those of Minster or Bank because BAC’s on the note had not been issued until after Therefore, the Smiths had executed mortgages to Minster and Union Bank. trial court did not abuse its discretion when it lien recognized BAC’s the 2008 foreclosure action only recognized as the holder, fourth lien because lien was promissory the rеsult note SIB, assigned from and not a mortgage assigned by result of the MERS. Overall, while we not all may necessarily agree with the doctrines {¶ 23} decision, and rules that the trial court used in its reaching we nonetheless have “ correct, held that judgment by the trial court which is but for a different ‘[a] ” reason, appeal will be affirmed on as there is no to the prejudice appellant.’ (Citations omitted.) (CV-I2) Assn., Wedemeyer F.D.R. U.S.S. Reunion 3d ¶ 1-09-57, 2010-Ohio-1502, Dist. No. 2010 WL Davis v. quoting ¶ Widman, 705, 2009-Ohio-5430, 16. Based on N.E.2d above, our discussion we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to substitute as a for MERS in the party-defendant in acquire any 2008 foreclosure case on the basis that BAC did not interest 60(B) ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍motion, partially when it it to rule on BAC’s Civ.R. when failed property, to have a fourth- and when it allowed BAC vacated the 2009 foreclosure judgment lien. priority are, second, third, of there- first, assignments and fourth error BAC’s 24}

{¶ fore, overruled. in appellant no error to the herein Having prejudicial found

{¶ 25} of trial court. argued, judgments and we affirm the pаrticulars assigned Judgments affirmed. P.J., judgment only. concurs in Willamowski, J., in part. concurs in and dissents part

Rogers, in in Judge, concurring part dissenting part. and Rogers, I from the of the respectfully part part concur and dissent decision {¶ 26} majority. I, fully majority’s to of error No. I concur with the assignment As

{¶ 27} it denying that the trial court did not err BAC’s motion to substitute I agree majority’s finding for MERS. that when the party-defendant judgment entry against foreclosing trial court issued a MERS’s on its interest on that it longer any March MERS no had viable interest Therefore, to I lack assign agree given could BAC on June BAC’s in the the trial court was reasonable in property, denying interest motion substitute. I Additionally, emphasize mortgage designated wish to that the MERS

“solely my as nominee for SIB As dissent in Mortgage Corp.” expressed 9-09-31, Shifflet, L.P. v. 3d Dist. No. 2010- Countrywide Servicing, Home Loans Ohio-1266, 1175235, 18-21, I language solely 2010 WL believe this served designate agent purposes servicing MERS as note any repayment and did transfer to MERS the real estate Therefore, it moneys party loаned. was never real interest. I Additionally, majority’s finding assignment believe of error I, concur, which I is inconsistent with the of the majority

No. with remainder opinion. II, In analysis assignment majority its of error No. finds court did not abuse its discretion when vacated the second foreclosure (filed BAC) because BAC never obtained when to it the assigned mortgage, Smiths’ may grounds assignee’s foreclosure action be for dismissal of an pending Nevertheless, where action is between the same the trial pаrties. of the second foreclosure portion

court did not vacate the II, Further, of error No. analysis assignment in its individually. Smiths in as listing trial court did not its discretion BAC majority holds that the abuse had a to collect right lien holder because BAC fourth-priority foreclosed and upon, lien from the sale of the real estate unsecured Bank’s interests. lien was subordinate to Minster’s and Union majority’s I conclusion that the trial court did agree While action, trial I believe that the err in of the second foreclosure vacating portions I find tо vacate the entire second foreclosure action. failing court erred that interest MERS had majority’s finding any inconsistent the 11, 2009, and, thus, that it no viable interest to extinguished passed was on March BAC, trial court’s majority’s subsequent and the validation of the and decree of foreclosure were valid the Smiths. BAC’s default reason, trial I validation of the majority’s For the same find inconsistent entry. in its December 2009 court’s of BAC as the fourth hen holder prioritizing judgment extinguished legal I that the March 2009 default bоth believe BAC, consequently, property. interests that and had equitable would, therefore, that it should have judgment, finding I reverse the court’s action and that it abused its discretion vacated the entire second foreclosure to which it was recognizing BAC as a lien holder the first foreclosure Hopkins, also Third Bank v. party. never See Fifth (“[I]f (Carr, P.J., 2008-Ohio-2959, such subse- concurring) 894 N.E.2d barred, to defend needlessly claims are not consumers will be forced quent First, pay lawsuits. The ramifications could be onеrous. separate numerous lawsuits, might to defend debt-laden consumers be forced against multiple burdens, greater taking mortgages assume even financial out second third This could lead to consumers’ overex- subsequent purchases. cycle real estate foreclosure ac- tending financially facing subsequent themselves additional Second, due, money I lawsuits for which subsequent tions. believe these conjunction clog with an initial would could be resolved courts”). of our trial dockets disagree application pendens I also with the trial court’s the lis

doctrine, which it used to its conclusion that BAC had never obtained support I that this is an use of lis appropriate do not believe had, consequently but rather that interest MERS pendens, obtained, extinguished operation judgment. could have was as if from a real Finally, assignment party even BAC had had valid interest, judicata filing I would find that BAC’s foreclosure was barred res “Motion in to Plaintiffs Motion for Default argued Union Bank’s Contra Complaint.” Supreme and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Court Judgment judicata of res the two related encompasses Ohio has held doctrine “[t]he * * * known as estoppel by judgment, of claim also concepts preclusion, collateral v. Parkman estoppel.” Twp. issue also known as Grava preclusion, (1995), This court previously 73 Ohio St.3d 653 N.E.2d 226. has held actions, by preclusion prevents subsequent parties the same or their “[c]laim subject out privies, upon any ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍arising claim transaction was the based Dawson, 14-09-08,14-09- of a action.” Dawson v. 3d Dist. Nos. previous matter 2009-Ohio-6029, 10, 14-09-11, 14-09-12, Additional WL 36. suit, ly, litigated previous a claim could have been claim “[w]here ¶ 36, also bars actions on that matter.” Dawson at preclusion subsequent citing Here, Bank judgment against Grava at 382. obtained subject the same matter in March 2009. I would concerning Consequently, find filing August judicata. BAC’s foreclosure 2009 to be barred res

WASINSKI, Appellee, II, INC., Appellee; PECO (Two cases.) Ryan, Admr., Appellant. II, Inc., [Cite as Wasinski v. PECO 2010-Ohio-4293.] Ohio, Appeals Court of District, County. Third Crawford Nos. 3-10-01 and 3-10-02. Sept. Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Union Bank Co. v. North Carolina Furniture Express, L.L.C.

Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals

Date Published: Sep 7, 2010

Citation: 939 N.E.2d 873

Docket Number: 2-10-01 and 2-10-02

Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.