View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In the Matter of the GuardianshipCase No, r . . ,:A"
of: Edward I. Solteszff
[E. Dean Soltesz-Appellant] On Appeal from the Erie
County Court of Appeals,
Sixth Appellate District
Court of Appeals
Case Nos. E-1 1-003
and E-11-015
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT E. DEAN SOLTESZ
E. Dean Soltesz, pro se1822 Parkford LaneColumbus, Ohio 43229-7084(614) 882-0473DSltsz C yahoo.com
APPELLANT, pro se
John F. Kirwan (0023924) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)Egger & Kirwan Law Office189 E. Market StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870(419) 626-1917Fax No. (419) 621-1344
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, ROBERT C. EGGER, ESQ.
;; €
Z^Si}iJ{i,t..'.^^^fi• ^.S:.+i..iti. i^i.:r
D. Jeffery Rengel, Esq. (SCN 0029069) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) andThomas R. Lucas, Esq. (SCN 0071916)RENGEL LA111! OFFICE421 Jackson StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870(419) 627-0400Fax No. (419) 627-1434ieff@lawoffices.net
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, D. JEFFERY RENGEL, ESQ.
James W. Moennich, Esq. (SCN 0003098) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook & Batista Co.414 Wayne StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870(419) 627-3100Fax No. (419) 627-3101JMoennich@WickensLaw.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, CITIZENS BANKING COMPANY
K. Ronald Bailey, Esq. (SCN 0009637) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)K. Ronald Bailey & Associates Co., L.P.A.220 W. Market StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870(419) 625-6740Inbox @ BaileyAndAssoc.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, K. RONALD BAILEY, ESQ.
Tom Bowlus, Esq. (SCN 0063433) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)Bowlus & Bowlus, Ltd. (Croghan Col. Bank)207 N. Park Ave.Fremont, OH 43420(419) 332-8260Fax No. (419) 332-4387tombowlus @ bowluslaw.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, CROGHAN COLONIAL BANK
Richard E. Grubbe, Esq. (SCN 0012293) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)TONE, GRUBBE, MCGORY & VERMEEREN, LTD.1401 Cleveland RoadSandusky, Ohio 44870(419) 626-0055Dick @ ohiolawfirm.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, RICHARD E. GRUBBE.
Dennis J. Morrison, Esq. (SCN 0000887) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)MEANS, BICHIMER, BURKHOLDER & BAKER CO., L.P.A.1650 Lakeshore DriveColumbus, Ohio 43204(614) 485-2010Fax: (614) 485-2019dmorrison @ mbbblaw.com
COUNSEL FOR MEANS, BICHIMER, BURKHOLDER & BAKER CO., L.P.A.
Diana D. Barrett,409 52nd StreetSandusky, OH 44870
APPELLEE DIANA BARRETT, Pro se
Edward I.Soltesz (Deceased)
WARD IN THE PROBATE CASES
Kevin J. Baxter, Esq. (SCN 0015782) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)Erie County Prosecutor247 Columbus Ave., Suite 319Sandusky, OH 44870(419) 627-7697Fax: (614) 627-7567prosecutor@ eriecounty.oh. .rov
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE ERIE COUNTY TREASURER AND THE PEOPLE OFERIE COUNTY, OHIO
FFPM/CARMEN, HOLDING I, LLCc1o Javich, Block & Rathbone, LLP602 Main Street, Ste. 500Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE FFPM/CARMEN, HOLDING I, LLC
Ohio Dept. of Job & Famify ServicescJo Ohio Attorney General30 E. Broad StreetColumbus, OH 43215
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES
Kimberly McKillips1811 Wade Blvd.Sandusky, OH 44870simbaa35@aol.com
APPELLEE KIMBERLY MCKILLIPS
CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc.Legal Department51 Middlesex Street - Suite 128North Chelmsford, MA 01863800-235-8690Fax: (978) 251-4488
APPELLEE, COURTSMART DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIALCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION . .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 2
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW . . 13
Proposition of Law No. i: The courts of appeals are withoutjurisdiction to dismiss a case, when a motion for correction ormodification, or to supplement the record has been filed without firstensuring that no actual genuine, live controversy, the decision ofwhich can definitely affect existing legal relations exists. . . 13
Proposition of Law No. II: The courts of appeals are withoutjurisdiction to deny a motion to correct, modify or otherwisesupplement the record on appellate review, when such denial maydeprive the moving party his duty to ensure that a trial courtrecord has not been tampered with. .. . . 14
Proposition of Law No. [lI: The courts of appeals are withoutjurisdiction to dismiss an appeal, when there may exist anunresolved issue concerning whether a ward has been providedequal protection under the law without a guardian ad litem havingbeen appointed, and the estate guardian has filed a suit against hisward, when any other party brings such notice to the attention of thecourt. 14
Proposition of Law No. IV: If the Sovereign People of the GreatState of Ohio are going to demand ethical proceedings in theircourts, then they need to provide every reasonable assistance totheir judiciary and the Ohio Bar Association for the attainment ofthose ethical proceedings. . . . . . 15
CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
APPENDIX
15
16
Apox. Page
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals(May 24, 2013) . . . .
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals(January 9, 2013) 5
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals(February 6, 2013) 8
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals(April 29, 2011) . 10
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals,Concerning Correct Titling of Land Sale Case(June 15, 2011) 12
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals,Concerning Supplementing the Record(June 15, 2011) 14
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals,Concerning Affidavit of Barbara Lamb(June 15, 2011) 16
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Erie County Court of Appeals(August 5, 2011) 18
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Probate Division of the ErieCounty Common Pleas Court(December 20, 2010) . 20
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Probate Division of the ErieCounty Common Pleas Court(January 3, 2011) 21
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Probate Division of the ErieCounty Common Pleas Court(February 22, 2011). 22
Decision and Judgment Entry of the Probate Division of the ErieCounty Common Pleas Court(February 24, 2011). . 24
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERALLNTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
This cause presents issues created by the courts below, which have reflected poorly on
the legal profession. The court of appeals has issued decisions inconsistent with the Appellate
Rules of Procedure, which are setting up a vicious circle between the probate court and the court
of appeals, without resolving issues involving substantial rights of Appellant's Dad (hereinafter
referred to as "My Dad" or "our Dad") and Appellant, as set forth in both the docketing
statement as well as the Statement of the Issues Presented for Review in the brief. Those issues
specifically involve Professional Conduct and Judicial Conduct Rule breaches, including my
Dad's substantial right to be heard and right to equal protection under the law consistent with
Civ. R. 17(B) Parties, Plaintiff and Defendant Capacity, Minors or Incompetents, and ORC
2111.23 Guardian ad litem, and Civ. R. 441Proof of Official Record.
This cause presents issues created by the courts below, which also involve multiple
failures to comply with, uphold and apply Ohio's criminal statutes in accordance with the Codes
of Conduct established by this Honorable Court, which may ultimately be decided by the public
on Internet sites with true copies of relevant court documents filed in the cases below. The
substantial rights under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions that are involved are especially relevant
to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution with regard to fraud, and especially
the property rights of my Dad, when my Dad was still alive.
This appellant is in the process of setting up a website on the Jnternet with a blog with
true copies of supporting court documents to explain to the entire world what is being done by
the probate court, and its court of appeals. If the proceedings below are not corrected, it could
further corrupt proceedings in other cases which have evolved from this initial guardianship case,
resulting in an even greater loss of public trust and confidence in probate proceedings in Ohio.
Statement of the Case and Facts
This case arises from the court of appeals decision in an appeal from the Probate Division
of the Erie County Common Pleas Court's decision of December 20, 2010, denying the
appointment of a guardian ad litem in the guardianship case (In the lt2'rztter of the Gciardianship
of Edward I. Soltesz, case number 20072028), and related decision denying the same
appointment in the land sale case (Robert C. Egger, Guardian of the Estate of Edward I. Soltesz
v. Edward I. Soltesz, et al., case number 20072028 A) on January 3, 2011. This case also rises
from other related litigation involving many of these same parties set forth briefly as follows.
Appellant learned of an impending sheriff's auction of the home in late May of 2005 of
which he was a part-owner under a survivorship deed set up by my Dad. Appellant then
telephoned my Dad minutes after being notified of the auction. My Dad told Appellant that if
anyone tried to remove him from his home, that he'd "shoot `em!" My Dad was a retired Lt.
Col. in the USAF Reserve and WW IJ: Veteran, and a hunting enthusiast most of his life. This
Appellant's priznary concern at that time was to protect the safety and well-being of my Dad.
Appellant met with and retained the services of appellee Dennis Morrison of Means,
Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., LPA. Appellee Morrison agreed to represent my Dad,
Appellant's sister Diana Barrett, and Appellant in the first foreclosure case.
From the onset of the 2005 through 2007 foreclosure proceedings, Appellant decided itcl,
was in the best interest of my Dad, if Appellant were to use the equity he had in the home this
Appellant was an owner of at that time, as collateral for borrowing money from Appellant's
credit card companies to pay for attorney Morrison's representation of us. Appellant's ethical
values and moral character deemed it was the honorable thing for a soit to do for his Dad, after
my Dad had set up the survivorship deed in Appellant and appellee Diana Ba.rrett's names by
Appellee Dick Grubbe. Appellee Diana also agreed that it was the best thing to do for our Dad.
The first foreclosure case (by attorney Bill Smith) was settled, and was followed shortly
thereafter by another foreclosure case later in June of 2005 by Appellee K. Ronald Bailey in
the case of K. Ronald Bailey & Associates, L.P.A. vs. Edward L^Soltesz, et al., Erie County
Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2002-CV-475, and subsequently 2006-Ohio-2489. Appellee
Bailey's representation of my Dad back around 1999 was before the Ohio Dental Board in
attempts to get my Dad's dental license re-instated. My Dad was failing to keep up with
modern practices in dentistry. Appellee Bailey requested a second mortgage on my Dad's
home as a condition of representing him in that case in lieu of a money retainer.
My Dad had apparently forgotten that he had just transferred the title of his home to
Appellant's name and Appellant's sister Diana's name just before he signed the second
mortgage with attorney Bailey. That is how Appellant and appellee Diana Barrett had become
entangled in the Bailey foreclosure case, although they were never notified of the lawsuit
Bailey had filed against them, until attorney Morrison informed Appellant and Appellee Diana
of that in late May of 2005.
Appellant received a letter from my Dad's personal physician on or about April 5,
2007, recommending the guardianship, since he had noticed my Dad's thinking had become
more disorganized to the point, where he could no longer safely care for himself. After
reviewing the letter of my Dad's personal physician with Appellee attorney Morrison, he
suggested that Appellant seek an attorney in Erie County to set up a guardianship for my Dad's
benefit.
Appellee Morrison stressed the importance of Appellant having whatever attorney
mighty be interested in setting up the guardianship to contact him as soon as possible for
important background information on the related cases in order to avoid complications.
Appellant first met with appellee Rengel on April 11, 2007, and urged appellee attorney
Rengel to contact attorney Morrison for the important background information in the prior
cases. Appellee Rengel assured Appellant he would.
Appellant and appellee Diana Barrett met together with appellee attorney Rengel on
Apri125, 2007. Appellee Morrison had again stressed to Appellant to have appellee Rengel to
contact him either before or during the April 25, 2007 meeting.
At the suggestion of attorney Morrison during settlement negotiations in the Bailey
litigation, Appellant's sister Diana Barrett and Appellant had an agreement notarized between
them for the primary purpose of figuring out how to best arrange for a lawful transfer of the
home back to Appellant's name, so Appellant could arrange for re-financing of the home and
relieve appellee Barrett of the financial burden of the debt she owed to Appellant for her share
of more than twelve thousand dollars in principal alone for attorney fees for Appellee Morrison
in the Bailey litigation as well as their Dad's share of that litigation. The financial burden on
Appellant and appellee Diana resulted from our Dad's inadvertence to allow us to know of his
entanglements with attorneys, while he was trying to leave us some type of inheritance.
Appellant's credit rating at the time was higher than 730 with all credit reporting agencies.
After the meeting with appellee Rengel, Appellant telephoned appellee Morrison as
requested to confirm the call, which attorney Rengel acknowledged had been. made to appellee
Morrison before the meeting. Appellee Morrison stated that attorney Rengel had not contacted
4
him prior to that meeting. Appellant and appellee Barrett had already retained appellee Rengel
and his law firm during the meeting with a one-thousand dollar retainer.
On May 31, 2007 Appellant signed a settlement agreement and a quit-claim of his
ownership in the home, ending the Bailey litigation to perfect the mortgage held by appellee
Bailey. Appellee Barrett signed it on June 1, 2007. Appellant had been assured by appellee
Rengel that such quit-claim and settlement papers were appropriate for the protection of all.
Appellant and appellee Diana were informed by attorney Morrison and appellee Rengel
that after thirty days, the title to the home could be transferred back to the name(s) of Appellant
(and possibly appellee Diana, if she and Appellant had agreed to do so per their notarized
agreement of April 25, 2007 in the Rengel Law Office.) Appellee Rengel .filed papers
initiating the guardianship on May 5, 2007. Shortly after the settlement Appellee Barrett stated
to Appellant that she and Appellant were in an adversarial relationship with each other.
On August 1, 2007 the first hearing was held in the guardianship case. During that
hearing it was decided that Appellant's sister Diana Barrett would be appointed as the personal
guardian, and temporary estate guardian of our Dad, until some appropriate way could be found
to relieve her of those duties as temporary estate guardian. Appellee Rengel had Appellant sign
an application for appoint-rnent of guardian naming Appellant as guardian backdated to May as
leverage to persuade appellee Barrett to accept the appointment as guardian of our Dad.
Before the probate court declared my Dad incoznpetent, Judge McGookey allowed my
Dad to state anything he wished concerning what he deemed were in his best interests from that
point forward. That was when my Dad clearly and emphatically stated that he never intended to
become a financial burden on any of his children. Appellee Rengel requested that a record be
made of key points in the hearing, and Judge McGookey declined that request, stating that the
record of the proceedings were safe with her.
On December 6, 2007 Appellant filed objections in the guardianship case, and attached a
copy of the April 25, 2007 agreement between him and Appellee Diana Barrett. On December
13, 2007 Appellant filed a motion for hearing in the guardianship case, requesting a record be
made of that hearing consistent with Ohio Revised Code 2111;02(C)(4).
On January 28, 2008 a hearing was held In the Matter of the Guardianship of Edwnrcl I
Soltesz, probate court case number 20072028. The purpose of that hearing was to determine how
to properly transfer the title of my Dad's home back to the Appellant's name, so that Appellant
could assume the duties of guardian of the estate in the most ethical rnanner possible with
minimally limited involvement of any attorneys. My Dad did not want to become involved with
any more attorneys.
During that hearing my Dad again presented evidence in the form of testimony that he
had never intended to become a financial burden on any of his children, affirming what he
stated before he was declared incompetent at the August 1, 2007 hearing. Appellant suggested
that the title of the home be transferred back to Appellant's name so that Appellant could
assume the duties of estate guardian, negotiate a pay-off of all creditors, who may have had a
legitimate claim against my Dad, and have the home re-financed in accordance with the April
25, 2007 agreement between Appellant and appellee Diana. My Dad emphatically exclaimed
"Yes!" to that proposition. There was no objection or other opposition by appellee Diana
Barrett to that proposition. Judge McGookey affirmed in response that Appellant could not be
blamed for having taken the initiative to look out for n1y Dad's best interests.
Appellee Robert. Egger was suggested as a proposed interim estate guardian in a limited
capacity. Judge McGookey telephoned appellee Egger about accepting the appointment, and he
did accept. Also during that hearing this Appellant gave his word to the Probate Court, that he
would assist that Honorable Court with making sure that all ethical rules would be complied with
for the benefit of that court and the protection of my Dad's interests.
On May 12, 2009 attorney and estate guardian Robert C. Egger filed a claim against my
Dad, his own client, as a land sale case in the Probate Division of the Erie County Common
Pleas Court, case number 20072028A. The estate had an appraised value in the Spring of 2007
of One-Hundred and Twelve Thousand Dollars. Appellee Morrison telephoned Appellant
shortly after that lawsuit had been filed to make sure Appellant knew that suit was against iny
Dad, asking if a guardian cad literre had been appointed. Appellant informed appellee Morrison
that appellee Egger stated he was just doing what needed to be done consistent with my Dad's
best interests from the January 28, 2008 hearing. Responses were filed by all parties in that land
sale case with the sole exception of my Dad, who was unrepresented, Appellee Diana Barrett and
Appellee Kimberly McKillips. Appellee Morrison filed a response stating that even though he
might not be present in person at hearings in the land sale case, that he was still present for the
purposes of the claim he had against the estate of my Dad. Appellee Rengel filed a counterclaim
against the estate, as well as a joint cross-claim against this Appellant.
Appellant stopped by the Ohio Veterans Home before he left Sandusky after a hearing in
late October of. 2009 to visit my Dad. My Dad asked what happened during the hearing. After
Appellant told my Dad what transpired during the hearing, he informed Appellant that Judge
McGookey's brother-in-law James 1VIcGook-ey was a vice president for Appellee Citizens
Banking Company that holds the first mortgage on his home. Appellant filed a motion in the
guardianship case for Judge McGookey to recuse herself from both cases in November of 2009.
After Appellant filed an affidavit of disqualification in this Court on Janua_ry 20, 2010, case
number 10AP005, Judge McGookey finally recused herself from both cases on January 22, 2010.
On February 2, 2010 the Honorable David A. Zeitzheim agreed to appointment in the
probate cases involved. On or about October 12, 2010 a hearing was held in the land sale case.
During that hearing Appellee Egger called Appellant to the witness stand, and asked permission
from the court to treat Appellant as an adverse witness, which was granted by the probate court.
Appellee Egger asked this Appellant if he had been filing court documents claiming to represent
himself pro se as well as my Dad. Appellant adrnitted to the accusation with the qualification
that the probate court had not been providing for the representation of my Dad under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Appellee Egger then
asked Appellant if he knew he could be prosecuted by the Ohio Attorney General for practicing
law without a liLense. Appellant replied he did not, but would agree to discontinue representing
my Dad, and move that all provisions claiming such representation of my Dad on previously
filed court documents be stricken, if that was what appellee Egger wanted.
On December 20, 2010 the probate court denied Appellee Egger's motion to appoint a
guardian ad litern to represent my Dad in case number 20072028. On January 3, 2011, the
probate court denied the motion and notice of Guardian Estate's position on appointment of a
guardian ad litem to represent my Dad in case number 20072028 A, and decided that the
appointment of a guardian ad litem for my Dad was not necessary. (Please note: The caption
incorrectly identified the title of the case as In the Matter of the Guardianship c1f Edward I.
Soltesz as opposed to having correctly identified it as RUbert C. Egger, Gucirdiar2 of the Estate of
Edward I. Soltesz v. Edward L Soltesz, et al, consistent with previous records in that land sale
case.) On the certificate of service in this decision The Honorable David A. Zeitzheim had
himself listed as an interested party to be served with a copy of that decision.
On January 24, 2011, Appellant filed a motion in the court of appeals to supplement the
record in appeals case nuniber E- 11-003 (the guardiayaship case, probate case number 20072028)
with the record of the January 28, 2008 hearing in that case. On February 11, 2011 appellant
filed a motion for modified judgment of the January 3, 2011. decision to correctly identify its
decision as the case of Egger v. Edward I. Soltesz, et al.
On February 22, 2011, the probate court flatly denied Appellant's tnotion for modified
judgment of the decision of January 3, 2011, denying the appointment of a guardian ad litem and
falsely, and henceforth fraudulently, holding its previous designation of the title of the land. sale
case (Robert Egger, Guardian of the Estate of Edward I. Soltesz v. Edward .l. Soltesz, et (al.) to be
the same as the guardianship case (In the Mat-ter of the Guardianship of Edward I. Soltesz). On
the certificate of service in this decision The llonorable David A. Zeitzheim again had hinzself
listed as an interested party to be served with a copy of that decision, too.
On February 24, 2011 in the guardianship case (case number 07-2-028), the probate court
acknowledged Appellant's objection to Appellee Egger's motion to partially pay creditors of the
estate of my Dad. The probate court also authorized payment to Appellee Croghan Colonial
Bank, Appellee K. Ronald Bailey, an amount of only $2,616 to Appellant, which the probate
court acknowledged to be considerably less than the total amount owed to Appellant (in light of
the financial burden my Dad requested he never become to any of his children), another payment
to appellee Rengel, payment to Appellee Egger the amount of $2,150, which was alleged to be
approximately 25% of the total amount previously awarded to him from prior motions by
9
Appellee Egger. No other parties were mentioned in the decision. Appellant has not received
aiay naoney at all from that decision.
On March 1, 2011, Appellant appealed the denial of the motion for reconsideration in the
land sale case (Robert C. Egger, GLaardian of the Estate of Edward I. Soltesz v. Fdward I.
Soltesz, et al., falsely identified by the probate court), probate case number 20072028 A.
On March 30, 2011 Appellant filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with the
record of the January 28, 2008 hearing held in the guardianship case. On April 29, 2011 the
court of appeals issued a decision holding Appellant's motion in abeyance, until the probate
clerk advises the court of appeals in writing, on or before May 2, 2011, if the record on appeal
contains the entire record from the trial court case No. 20072028.
On May 2, 2011 Barbara J. Lamb, Court Admini:strator and Deputy Clerk for the Erie
County Probate Court, filed an affidavit that the record on appeal contains the entire case record
from both cases 20072028 and 20072028A. (It must be noted that the deputy clerks were under
the direction and control of the probate judges of that court.)
On June 3, 201.1 Appellant filed his brief of appellant in case no. E-11-003 (trial court
case no. 2007-02-028), and case no. E-11-015 (trial court case no. 2007-02-028A). Appellee
Egger was the only party to file a brief of appellee.
On June 15, 2011 the court of appeals issued decisions denying Appellant's motions
relevant to the correct titling of the land sale case as distinct from the guardianship case;
supplement the record with the transcript of the January 28, 2008 hearing record and the court
reporter's affidavit; and granting Appellant's motion with the trial court record in case number
20072028, but only as to the affidavit of Barbara Lamb.
10
On August 5, 2011, the court of appeals issued another decision in case nos. E-11-003
and E-11-015, granting appellee Egger's motion to suppletnent his brief page 4, a copy of which
was attached thereto. That page 4 supplement proves a jury demand was made in that case.
On November 16, 2011 appellee Egger filed an appellee's answer brief in court of
appeals case no. E-11-047 (these same probate cases), stating on pages 1 and 5-6, that this same
Appellant had made no effort to reconstruct the record for the court of appeals pursuant to
App.R. 9. Appellee Egger further held that Appellant must attempt to reconstruct the record in
the Trial Court pursuant to App.R. 9(C) by submitting to the Trial Court any additions or
modifications that hebelieves would better preserve his arguments for review, citing State vs.
Osborn (1976) 89 Ohio St.2"d 135, 359 N.E.2d 78.
On December 7, 2011 my Dad died at the Ohio Veterans Home in Sanduskv.
On January 11, 2012 the court of appeals held oral argument for the sole purpose of
determining how much money Appellant should be ordered to pay appellee Egger for attorney
fees for the appeal filed. Judge Yarborough stated during those proceedings that they did not get
involved in ethical matters, with Judges Osowik and Pietrykowski smiling in acknowledgment at
Appellant. Appellant was shocked to learn such a position of that court.
On November 28, 2012 Appellant filed a motion in the court of appeals in case nos. E-
11-003 and E-11-015 to obtain information from CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc. On January
9, 2013 the court of appeals issued a decision denying Appellant's motion for authority to obtain
inforniation frorn Appellee CourtSmart. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on January
22, 2013, and that was denied on February 6, 2013.
On May 24, 2013 the court of appeals sustained the probate court's decisions, after it
denied appellant's App.R. 9(E) motion, There are cases which have also arisen from the
11
guardianship case, which involve actual genuine, live controversies, which definitely involve
legal relations, and are definitely not moot. Those cases are: In the Estate ofEdtivard I. Soltesz,
(probate case number 2012-1-072; court of appeals case numbers E-12-044, F-12-046, E-12-047
and E-12-049; Citizens B&ank-ing Company v. The Estate of Edward I. Soltesz, et al., trial court
case number 2012 CV 0752, Diana D. Barrett v. E'. Dean Saltesz, (in the Erie County Common
Pleas Court, case number 2012 DV 0156, which is also under appeal), and D. Jef fery Rengel,
Esq. v. E. Dean Soltesz, case number 2012 CV 0380.
Appellee Rengel went as far as to demand that Appellant file a criminal complaint against
him in the land sale case as recently as June of 2012. Appellant has complied with the appellee
Rengel's request by filing such criniinal complaint against him with the Erie County Sheriff's
Department in September of 2012. However, Appellant has learned that even though the Erie
County Prosecutor has had that complaint on his desk, he is may be trying to figure out how to
handle it, while still not doing something that would reflect unfavorably on the legal profession.
Appellee Rengel now has a Ten-Thousand dollar claim against Appellant in the General
Division of the Erie County Common Pleas Court for attorneyfees he alleges Appellant owes
him. Appellant needs the information from Appellee CourtSmart relevant to whether they do in
fact have an online backup copy of the January 28, 2008 hearing available for transcription.
That online backup copy of that hearing record will be able to restore Appellant's reputation
from the slander and libel he has suffered from appellee Rengel's malicious accusations against
Appellant of trying to take unfair advantage of my Dad and appellee Diana Barrett.
Appellant intends to file a full report with The Center for Public Integrity in Washington,
D.C. for the protection of the People of Ohio as well as other Americans. Appellant wishes that
this Honorable Court. maintain the dignity of the judiciary by avoiding any appearance of
12
impropriety by accepting jurisdiction in these matters, where it may correct improprieties, going
as far as involving felonious activity by several Ohio judges. The only thing Appellant has not
doneto"worlc" with the probate court is to offer a bribe, and Appellant will not do that!
ARGUMENT LiT SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW
Proposition of Law Na. I: The courts of appeals are without jurisdiction to dismiss acase, when a motion for correction or modification, or to supplement the record hasbeen filed without first ensuring that no actual genuine, live controversy, the decisionof which can definitely affect existing legal relations exists.
If the court of appeals would have correctly applied City of Grove City v. Clark, 10xh
Dist. No. 01 AP-1369, 2002-Ohio-4549, y[ I l., quoting Culver v. Citv of Warren, 84 Ohio App.
373, 393, 83 N.E.2d 82 (7`' Dist. 1948) (Citations omitted), it would have applied Grove City
in support of granting Appellant's motion for authority to obtain information from CourtSmart.
There does exist not just one, but several "actual genuine, live controvers[ies], the decision of
which can definitely affect existing legal relations." Those actual genuine, live controversies,
the decision of which can definitely affect existing legal relations are:
1) Appellant's pending and forthcoming motions to obtain information from
CourtSmart in each of the cases referenced in the Statement of the Case and Facts on page 12
above
2) The fact that if the Erie County Common Pleas Court is permitted to conveniently
decide that any future hearing Appellant would be required to participate in, in any of the cases
referenced above, he would again have judgments made against him without the benefit of a
record being made available for transcription for appellate review in any of those cases as well
3) Whether one or more judges in Erie County have engdged in felonious activity by
concealing a record or other evidence in violation of both Ohio and federal statutes.
13
In Egger v. Soltesz, 2011-Ohio-4143, at 16, the Court of Appeals held:
Pursuant to App.R. 9, it is the duty of the appellant to provide a transcript forappellate review. Mentor v. Molk, llth Dist. No. 2010-L-112, 2011-Ohio-3120, 9E11,citing Warren v. Clay, l lth Dist. No. 2003-T-0134, 2004-Ohio-4386; Knapp v.Edwards Z.abortxtorie.r (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199. This duty is "necessary becausean appellant shoulders the burden of demonstrating error by reference to matters withinthe record." Id.
The law of the case must hold. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals had to grant this
Appellant's motion for authority he needs to obtain the necessary information from Appellee
CourtSmart to resolve the issue of whether that record truly is available for transcription.
Proposition of Law No. II: The courts of appeals are without jurisdiction to deny amotion to correct, modify or otherwise supplement the record on appellate review,when such denial may deprive the moving party his duty to ensure that a trial courtrecord has not been tampered with.
App. R. 9(E) Correction or modification of the record clearly and plainly states:
If atay difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the trial court,the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court and the record made to corifornz tothe truth. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident oris misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the trial court, either before or after the recordis transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of itsown initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary thata supplemental record be certified and transmitted. All other questions as to the form andcontent of the record shall be presented to the court of rtppeals. (Emphasis added.)
Consistent with Grove City and Ctilver, supra, the Court of Appeals should have first
resolved the issue of whether the January 28, 2008 hearing record was truly available in
accordance with Appellee's motion for authority to obtain information from Appellee
CottrtSmart. The Court of Appeals should have given more weight to appellant's citation of
State ex rel. Estate of Hards v. Klamnaer, 110 Ohio St.3d 104, 2006-Ohio-3670 at 114 relevant
to claims of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and various other provisions of law,
being remediable in the ordinary course of law rather than by extraordinary writ.
14
Proposition of Law No. III: The courts of appeals are without jurisdiction to dismissan appeal, when there may exist an unresolved issue concerning whether a ward hasbeen provided equal protection under the law without a guardian ad litem havingbeen appointed, and the estate guardian has filed a suit against his ward, when anyother party brings such notice to the attention of the court.
In the Court of Appeals citation of In re the Guardianship v, f Thacker, 1 I`h Dist. No.
2006-Ohio-P-0076, 2007-Ohio-0778, they should have properly applied the fact that the Thaclti:er
Court had appointed a guardian ad litenz appointed to represent its ward in that particular case.
The appointment of a guardian ad, litem (in an estate valued at more than ten-thousand dollars) is
required by ORC 2111.23 Guardian ad litern, and Civ.R. 17(B) Parties Plaintiff and Defendant
Capacity at any stage of the proceedings. These rules allow the courts to comply with, uphold and
apply both substantive and procedural due process, as well as help protect the officers of the court in the
proceedings below in accordance with their oaths.
Egger v. Soltesz, 2011-Ohio-4143, at y[ 6, supra, supports this proposition of law, too.
(See Ohio Revised Code 2111.14(B) concerning the "best interests of the ward" - not the best
interests of the estate.) The estate has no interests because it is not a person.
Proposition of Law No. IV: If the Sovereign People of the Great State of Ohio aregoing to demand ethical proceedings in their courts, then they need to provide everyreasonable assistance to their judiciary and the Ohio Bar Association for theattainment of those ethical proceedings.
This proposition of law is supported by the facts presently available in this case as well as
Hards v. Klammer, 110 Ohio St.3d 104, 2006-Ohio-3670 at 114.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, this case involves matters of public and great general
interest and at least one substantial constitutional question. The Appellant requests that this
Court accept jurisdiction in this case, so that the irn.portant issues presented will be reviewed on
the merits.
15
Most respectfully submitted,
G _...._._. _.. .
E. Dean Soltesz, pro seNext of Kin of Edward I. Soltesz1822 Parkford LaneColumbus, OH 43229-7084Phone: (614) 882-0473
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction was sent by ordinaryU.S. mail on this H`" day of July 2013 to:
John F. Kirwan, Esq.Law Office189 East Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Diana Barrett409 52nd StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870
James W. Moennich, Esq.Wickens, Herzer, Panzer, Cook & Batista Co.414 Wayne StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870
K. Ronald Bailey &Associates Co., L.P.A.220 W. Market StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870
Dennis J. Morrison, Esq.MEANS, BICHIMER, BURKHOLDER &BAKER CO., L.P.A.1650 Lake Shore Drive, Ste. 285Columbus, Ohio 43204
Kevin Baxter,Erie County Prosecutor247 Columbus Ave., Ste. 319Sandusky, OH 44870
Javich, Block & Rathbone, LLP602 Main Street, Ste. 500Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
D. Jeffery Rengel, Esq.RENGEL LAW OFFICE421 Jackson StreetSandusky, Ohio 44870
Richard E. Grubbe, Esq.TONE, GRUBBE, MCGORY &VERMEEREN, LTD.1401 Cleveland RoadSandusky, Ohio 44870
Thomas M. Bowlus, Esq.Bowlus & Bowlus Ltd.207 North Park AvenueFremont, Ohio 43420
Ohio Attorney General30 E. Broad StreetColumbus, OH 43215
16
CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc.Legal Dept.51. Middlesex Street - Suite 128North Chelmsford, MA 01863
The following party has allowed for service by email, and has been served in such fashion thisthe 8th Day of July 2013:
Kimberly A. McKillips1911 Wade Blvd.Sandusky, Ohio 44870simbaa35@aol.com
^ ^_:...
E. Dean Soltesz, prca se, of Kin ofEdward 1. Soltesz
17
05l24f2013 08:35 4152134844
IIV TI-^^ COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSIXTH APPELLATE Di STRICT
E&T13•• COUNTY
In the Matter of the Guardianshzpof: Edward 1< Solte.sz
[E. Dean Soltcsz-Appeiiantl
COURT OF AP
Court of Appeals No. Eµ11-003E-11-015
"rrial Court No. 2007202$20072^^% A
DECISION ANDJU1DG1yIENT
Decided: MAY 2' 4 2013
PAGE 01f04
"̂1t1:zytt E . 1.rr'Cu ^'^°^, cS2 u}'̂^N̂^°a?v the December 7^► , '^(^J.f^ and February 22, 2Qi.11i,^J^1^% E. ^.sva^d .
judgments of the Erdc CountY Court of Common Pieas, which d enied his motion to
appoint a guardian ad lit.em.f.or his Iatiaer, EdNvard I . Sol.tesz. Also before the court is the
mc►ti©^^: to disnilss appellant's appeal, filed by appellee Robert C. Egger, as guardian of
the estate of Edward I SoAtes7,
^l:^^^(33J /2-4-1113
05r'24/2013 08:35 4192134844 COURT OF AP PAGE 01104
This consolidated appeal stems from the February 2008 appointment of appellee
as the guardian of the estate of Edward L Soltesz, an incompetent person, and, the
eoinplaint for land sale tilecl by appellee which named all the inmr,este+d parties, including
appellant, to the saYe. Appellant has #iled, several appeals from various rulings in an
attempt to have the title to the property transferred. in his ziaine and has cha.laen,gecl the
actions of appellee as the pardian of'the estate. Appellant has also challenged the
actions ofiI!Lf ,L "S .:r̂ 's^.^.1tw:.",. D1 ia^'''c̀3 B '-"_?°T'et .,̂, ^s his •̂c^..t1^^.e^'i ...̂ ^`^1ardf.^"L^..- e3 ^
During the pendency of this a.ppeal, on December 22,201. 1, a:ppdflee's eounsel.
filed a siiggestion of death indicating that appei.lee'a ^.^ard died onDeceznbe.r 7, 2011.
Appellee's motion to dismiss argues that because appellant failed to substitute a new
party to the appeal, and because the guardianship was terminated by the filing the final
aceaurtting (to which appellant fa,iled to file an ^.i.̂ peal) the case should be disxnissecL We
agree.
Ohira courts have long held that the de'ath of the ward tenxzinates the duties and
obligation oi"the g.,a.rdian, ,5`ee,Tyz re the tnicrrdians^ip of Thacker, llth Dist. No. 2006-
P-0076, 20113-OhlQ-778. As a ward of tl-ie d.ecedent's estate, appel.lee's obligation
terminated following the filing of his final accounting tstr March 5, 2012, and the court's
May 30, 2012 approval. Appellantjs sister and the decedent's guardian, Diana Barrett,
was appointed the administrator of the estate.
Appellant's first and second assignments of error in his appeal challenge the trial
court's denial of his Anotions to appoint a guardian ad litotn for his father to alleviate,
2..
05r'24f2013 08:35 4192134844 COURT OF AP PAGE 03/'04
what appellant believed, vvas a con#lict ofinterest on the part of appellce. Issues Of
appellant's standing to even assert such assignrncnts of error aside, (1uc to tho dea.tti of
appcila.nt°s father, this assignrszcnt of cxrot is m.OOt. t'.n action, is cc►nsidt,-red moot where
it involves "`no actual. genuine, live contrQvexsy, the decision of which c-cin definitely
affect existing legal irelatioiis."' City of Grove ^`ity v. Clark, I OthDist. No. UlAF 1369,
21 002-C3hio-4549, T 11, quoting Culver v. Cio,, qf Warren, 84 Uhio App. 3 73. 3 93, 83
i`5.E.2'd 82 t7''1?. Dist.1,948j fChwt:or; ornlfit¢d.) Ae t h?o this c..'`t'rt's c^nnrnerAS tn our
decisiaai in Egger v. Soltesz, 6th Dist, No. E- 11-04?, 201 2-Ohio-3 182 (following the
suggesti.on of death, appellant shoul.d have 1naved the courr t`or an order substituting the
proper parties.)
In addition, the third assigninent of error regarding the alleged absence of a court
reporter at the hearitig of January 2008, where the guardian was appointed, is a.lso.moot
as the relief requested by appellant was that this court order dismissal of the land saic
case against appellant's father, the decedent. The lower court issued an order approving
abandonment of the property on Jui.y 26, 2012, and appellant has filed an appeal of that
order in case No. E-12-046.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the motion to dismiss filed by appeiiee
Robert C. Egger, Guardian of the Estate afEdv,jard I. Soltesz, is well-taken and is
grailted. The court orders this appeal dismissed at af+pellantgs eosts,
3.
05/2412013 O8: 35 4192134844 uuut-^' ^ ^il Ar r"Hl7G C! T1 V••
In the Matter of'the, (-'Tuardianship o'1':
^dward 1. SalteszE-1 1-003 and E-X 1-0 15
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mar.^date pursuant to.A.pp.R. 27.
See also 6th Distloc.App.R, 4.
IVlark L. Pict rykr,wski, T.
Tlyormas J. C1scwik, J.
Stephen A, YarbrtauahR JC(7NCtTR.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS TO, BEA T RUE COPY OFTHE ORIGINALFILED IN THIS C7i FECE.
LUVADA S. WJLw{3N, CLErRK OF COURTSErieCaun ^ti^ /r^s•.
^ ^ ew
4.
^^^^^T CC
COURT OF AP69i 2G13D 12:12 4192134244
^ r© A PPC^#^ ^^
2813 0Ptf 12,
^i.. F^^ ^ot/R r tS
OF A..^FEAI,^ O'F 011:0',-'vT T A'r^' ^I^^`P'ICT4
. . . . . . ^ ^ .. .. .r . .
11, the Niatter of the Uliaccli^^ship Of^
Ed-warA I. SOltr.'
[E. Dean Soltesz-APPellalatl
Court of Appeals No. E- 11LLt103E- l1-Q15
-r-ria1 c<+urt No. 2007202820Q7202£S A.
DECI.SION Al'D-"_GMENT
Decided:: JAN 0 9 2013
Appeilant, E^ean Soltesz, 1'^s filed a mOtiOn in th's court requesting the at^thozity
to obtain infar.znation from. ^^-ur^Smart Digita.l Systems§ T.n.c., a private firma as to the
availability of the reccrrdin.9 fr0rn the January 28, 2008 probate hearing,
LF
1.^ ^^^ZLf
► 11.^1-3
^`0912013 12:12 419213¢$44 Vut.ttrr ur- F-ir
Appellant contends tiia.t upon commencing this appeal in january 2011 , the eourt
reportex requested the record for transcriptiOn puzposes. According to the ernails
he^.tta^bed to arpel^l^t's rnotic^n, the court rep^er ^ie^. a^ affidavit witb t court stat^g
that she requested the racording of the ja'€uary2008 b_ea.ring, b-lit wu told that there was
no ref-lard
Iri August 2012, appellant contacted a C4urt^mart representathre about whether a
backup recording ur&S available frOrn kiie hearing Or whothe-T any serv ice c-a1l:s v"'e'-e made
to the P-lectronir- recording device at the Erie Cotmty Cominon Pleas Court ftm Sanuary
28, 2008#1irough Niareh 7, ^0i. i. The representative indicated that he lacked authOr%ty to
rapond to appellant' ^^quest wi.thout a court order. Appellant then filled oixt apu.bi.ac
rwcsrds request fonn wbiGh was ultirn.ately forwarded to the court. The latest email
caramunicaticm. came on Octaber 19, 2012, t'rom the Erie County Court of Common
t'ieas, I'robate Division, which indicated that the court was tryiog to accornmod,ate the
request.
Reviewing appeila-at's motzon and a"chrnents, we find that we are unable to
provide the relief requested. From the attached emails it appears that the E-rie County
Probate Court is atterapting to ascertain -,vhether CourtSmart has any relevant information
regarding the request In addition, we have previously stated, and appellarit has cOrrectly
noted, a party is charged with providing to the eourt all items necessMY tO sUPPOrt it
arguments on appeaL See APpJ;L 9. This ^.-^pea1 was ccrnm:e^ced in January 2011, The
bearing at issue was held in January 2008. It is unclear why appellant has taken uzxtil
2.
,1l09: ^t013 12:12 4192134044 COURT OF AP °AGE 03,'03
to pursue the acquasiti,01, of the adlsged transCripts. Oral argument has beenAII,gu^qt 20 12
held and the ma.tter, 7:neluding appp-lIce's motion to disIniss9 is r►ow clecis^onalw
Aocordingly, appellaAt's znation: is denied. Further, wc deny appellant's December 14,
2012 motion for leave- to amend, it is so ord.cred.
ggrk . L_ h9L'TAO-wSk1. J.
st A_ ^'arb^.cONCLTiZ.
,NDGE
1°'''.•-,- ^•^7;"4 G
3.
.!06l2013 15:18 41^3'L134644 vLju^^I ^jl -,
Rl^L^4
:;0:s
(
IN TBE COiJRT OF APPEALS OF C}IUOSDaH Apps.,LATE Dz^^CT
ERIE COUNTY
Trial Court No. 2007202$2^07202$ A
jr, Ma-Itter of the ^.SuaYd1^.f^S:t^* t1:F-:,t^,VSjA_ 1. SL?jteS7,
[E, I3^ Soltes^^.pPe118ntl
DECT5^e^^
i3ecided:^^6 2013
Appellant, E. Dean Soltesz, requests that this court roemider its January 9, 2013
his motion for authornty to obtain infcmati.am fmr€^ CourtSmart Digital
Stirste^s, Inc., about the existence Of a rMrnrdin;g fr=the probate hearilag of Januafy 28,
f 3;^cR rr, ou9 de-cision denying the motivn, we found that appellant's delay in requesting
^^;p^eci and that we were unable to pro^iu^ ^^ re^^^r^ue^c^+^.
; Firs;(, we ncw that ihe m,€rtion for reconsiderafion is untimely. App.R. 26 provides
that
be
1.
"amlicatim for reconsideration of any cause or motion submitted on appeal shall
in wxititag no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties the
ent or order in question and made a note cxa the de5cket of the mailing as required
^ '^ : `•,;` :_. ',, . .._.. . i^.^T._ -• - ^^^^^^^^^^1 -5
„t CiOf LCil,^ 25e 10^
by AppY, 30(A).A' Tbejudgrnent was fll'ed and,3murnali=d on January 9,2013 and,
according to ^clerk, was mailed on the sme date.
Even considering the merits of the motion, we find that other th= adfton.al
unsupported accusatirns of mVzapriety by the probate court, appeUant has DWed to draw
to thecou^'s attention either an issue not addressed in its decision or improperly
sd.^iP^^ed, &e Afatthows v, .Adatthewv, 5 Ohio Apg.3d 140, 450 N.E.2d 21$ (1Oth
^'^ ^ ^^`'^ig to e^Iai^: hzs ^lay in seeking zhe^s^ ^ _t::s
r-ecoxds is unper^uasive. It is not the duty of the court to determine why an appellant
Wled to -aammit the entire record in the one, the responsibility of twsmiling the recvrd
is entire3:y appeIlant`s. See A.Pp.R. 9(3).
Finally, apgellantt states that the "issue has bewme an original action with respect
to App.T,..9 and l:W' and refers to his inquiries as a'`public recozdsrequest" 6th
Dist.LocApp.R. 6 sets forth the prme+3.ure to foUow in crr%gina1 acticm.s..
Based on the foregoing, we find that appellaax's motion for rmonsideration is not
^^ ell-^ken and it is denied.
. _ . , T^4S.k L . d Sid1.L ykowstU J.
`I'homas I Q^wLk, J.
Stohen A. Yarbrau& J.^ONCt.IR.
2.
^^^ ^JUDGE
04/29r'2011 13: 25 4192134844 G'OI:1F'T rtF aP PAGE 01/02
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSIXTH APPELLATE I3TSTR,ICT
E.' { COLTNTY
In the Matter of the Guardiailshipof: Edward I. Soltesz
-A
!J•, ^^ `^,.-y^.,: S^
-•'` ,../x. •"'^ ^
)v'1 '
Court of Appeals Nos. E- 11P003E-17-015
Trial Court I'^,Tos. 2007202$20072028 A
^^^^^^^^ AND ^^^^^N-f
Decided:AP^ ^ ^ ^011
T1Yis mattcr is before th,c court on appeIlant's, E. Dcaza Saltesz, pro so "Motioxa for
Extension of Time to Transmit Record.`° Thig- case is a owiso1.x:dated appeal. On
March 7. f, 2011, the courfi consolidated case Nos. E-1 1-003 (trial court case No.
20072028), and E-11.-0 S.^ (trial court case No. 20072028 A).
On March 17, 2011, the Erie ^oulity Clerk of Courts issued two xdeiitical. App.R.
1:1,(B) notices advising that the trial colirt record in both cases, Nos. 20072028 and.
3,5V3^)72007.^028 .^., ^r^.s ;^"iled wzth t^ie co^ o^` a5^1^eaZs. TIiere^'oz^^ e cur ^,^l^ c^ t t^ill treat
appe1lant's motion as a motio:n to supplement the record.
f
I
13.25 41.52134844 C,CiLERT QF AP F'ACE 02<'02
Despite this App.R. I l (B) notice, appellant states he recently reviewed the record
on appeal at the court of appeals clorles of.ficeq ^nd claiTns that the record in trial court
case No. 20072428 was not included in the record on aripea.l.
The court holds appellant°s motion in abeyance and directs the probate clork to
advise the court in writing, on or before May 2, 201 J, if the record ^^^ ^^peal contains the
entirc record from trial ^^^lt case No. 20072028, It is so ordered.
ThoLas J. Osowik ^,^e _,^
2.
P6/15I2911 13:51 419213:4844 COURT OF AP PAGE 81l8'2
C-)
CS3 f t :Lsrn
--- ^
° tri =--^
cf,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSIXTIJ APPELLATE DZS'.1'RICT
ERIE COU-N1'Y
In the Matter of the Guardianshipaf- Edward 1, Soltesz
[I5. Dean Soltesz-Appe,1lant]
Court of Appeals No. E- 1 I-003L-1.Io015
Trial Court No. 2007202 820072028 A
,l^II19MENT
Decided: MN is iou
Appellant, E. Dean Sottesz, has filed a moti.on. to amend the appellate crsurt',q
c1exk's App.R. 1 I(F3) notices filed in th^^^ consolidated cases on.March 17, 20l 1.
Appellant states -that the case C^aption is incor.rect and should be aniended; App.R.. 3(D)
states, „The title of the case shall be the same as in the trial coult witla: the designation of
the appellant added, as appropriate." The title of trial court case No. 20072028A, App.
No. E-11-01.5, is "In the Matter of the Guardianship of Edward. 1. Soltesz;F6 the title of
tr..ial cc►urt case No. 20072028, App. No. E-,11-003, i s also "In the Matter of the
Guardianship of-Edward I. Soitesz." The title of the case on the A-pp.R. I 1(B) notices is
^- 4 D1. ^ 3
,^ n
"Edward I. Soltcsz, In the matte:r of the Guardiaoship of vs. Robert C. Egger, , Guaxdi^ of4^
1.8.ie ^^..̀1s.6a6eo1 Edward l, Sodt^ir'sz-fr While this case title may not be exactly the amei we
find that the cam being nPpealed are identified by the appropriate trial court 6se
numbers and that the case caption identifies tl-ie guardianship ward and the^^rdian of
the ward. Th^^^ we see nc, ireason to amend the March 17, 2011 App.R. l I(Bi notices,
Appeilantrs concerts that this cou1l will not be able to deterr,ninc who the parties are in
ttAz, case and ivlio is ttie appellant aud the alapeliee are unfounded.
Next, appellant asks that the notices be corrected as to his name. The ^otices state
that they were mailed to R. Dean SoIt^^z at appeIlant"s address instead of E. Dpan
Soltesz; appellant does not ciaini tfi at the error caused him not to be notifiedol^ the filing.
IVe wilt not order the App.R. 11, (B) notices to be amended as to appeIlant's n^rie. Tb.e
clerk shall correct her records as, to the carrect naine of appellant for service irl the ftztU.re.
Appellant states that these noti.cts sliould have also been served on Th Hanorab.Ie.
David A. Zoitzheim, the trial court judge in this case. Thc j-udge does not itav^ tobe
ser't;ed with an App-R. 1.i($) nc►tic.e. The rrptiee i.s tO be served on "alX partyeS."' The
judLre is not aipatty t^ the, c:use.
Thlemction to amend tb.eA.pp.R. I I(B) notices is denied.
z,
l^E, ,`15 ; 20 11 1 F: 41 921 J4844 COURT OF AP
..1.'...' .
cz:..:_
^ C>
^^.
>
` L17IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSTX'TH APPELLA'1'E .t3ISnUCT
^^^ ^^^^NrTy
IxI. the Ma.tte-t of the Guardianshipof: Edward I. Soltesz
[E. Dean Soltesz-Appellant]
PAr;E 01/02
r.s
C=
c.n
^
Court of Appeals hTo, E- 1 1-Q03
E-1Z-015
Tria1 Court No. 2007202820072028 A
DECISION AND JtTDGMENT
Decided:
^^^ 6 20114 * * * *
f,"iIed a motlol., to SupPIcmcnt the record with, atraTlscri:pt of the
fiearing lxeld, on. Jartuary 28, 2f}08, TIle record ira this case reveaIs that the hearing of that
date. was not recorded by azxy r.^eans and therefore, there,can, be no transcript.
Appellant also ^^sks tlaat the record ori appeal be supplc;m.ented with an affidavit a^..^
a court reporter C011cczzaiag hcr effortsto obtain a recording of that he^rxa:1g. "A
7.
^ .
j/2011 15a 0r. 4192134844 E~UURI' OF AP PAGE 021 Ei2
revieWing court cannot add mattcr to the record before it, which was oot a part of th, trial
cotzrt's Proceedings, ^e+ Sta-te v. Ishmar.'l (I978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 402^ pa:ragraph one. of
the sylla.bus,
T7ie mOtiOn tO suPPlerz7.ent is denied.
Tliornas J. Osoivi%k .P.J.^
itr GE ^. ^^
2.
(,.
i,.
^
c3^c^ =
e+^
IN THE COURT OF AFPEA,LS OF OHIOSiX'.l•II APPELLATE DISTRICT
ERIE COUNTY
iAf^c:c^F ^t drca- Gwa rtwixipofe Edivard I. Soltesz
[E. Dean Sol.tesz-AppeZlant]
coi7:E,'(of A.11)-Pwa:s hm I. a -00.i
E-1 1-015
Trial Court No, 2007202820072028 A
DECISI^N AND J-UDGl^ENT
JUN 16 2011
Appellant has filed a motioti for an extension of time to transmit the r'ecr;rd. in
Decided:
.^r
^
cn
{.f?^
these consolidated appeals. In his inotian, :̂ ^ states that the record oii appeal contains
C5n1.}' the £l0culYiG3.:ita friiDi trial court ca:seNrJ. ^ Y()28A.
noted thcqt the record On appeal was filed on March 11, 2011, and that the court would
treat the motion as One to suppl^i-nent the record on appeal with the trial couit rccozd in
case No. 20072028. We then directed the clerk of the trial court to advise us in writing if
the recard on appeal contains the documents fTorn case No. 20072028. On May 2F 2011,
l, RLIS^` :D) J-';^ I q
^
- ^ ^-^-^^., ^
1he c^^rkf- vs i.niit as of +:i,eut.. '-.i^̂ .:Ws •{.Ld4r '-^W•v+v:s.A.i. +L13.7-. .
4ruLi.^4.:?v^S Wi„P1L'46i^L.kS ^lrc.^
entire record from both case Nos. 20072028 and 20072028A.
AccordingIy, we retroactively grant the motion to supp9em- e.at the record with ^k^e
.tnalt^<.^^^^^^ ^ cas^, Na^. 2f^t1720^^^
. ..... . _ ._-.. .. _. ^,- .^.
I
aar ia^i 1 l ef :Jb 41 'U134844
,TUL-i4-2011 13t30 FFROl'I:ERIE CTY CLK OF CTS
COURT OF AP PAGE H1I^2
p .W4.,O05419 624 6873 70c402134844
IN ^M P-R23 +^^UnY COM:^ Otr APPEALsSEM. A.l^^^LLANT DISTWCT
ROBERT C, E4^EP,GtJARDIAN C3F tHE EST'A'^OF EDWARD z, SOLTESZ
PLAW1FFlAPPEI,LEE
vS.
2, DEAN SOLTESZ
DEF.ANIYAPPEfi LANT
cns^•
.^-^
CASE NO$. E-1 1-0003 >B-114{}015 °c.
C-'c..^.T,^., COURT NO, 7{^U'^-z-(^28 ^
2007R2^028A("ne^,0
^^^NT MMY
AUG 06 2otfffOM F KMWAN'ATTORNEY FOR APPM..I.EEROBERT C. EGGI.^. GuARDLANOF THE ES^',^„^^ ^^ EDWARD LSOM'E^^SCN 0023924189 E, MAP,TX- I ST,SAZZD`tS^ICY, t^R 44870419-626W1 917FAX 419-62l-1S44
T'hc Ccauft for good erxyse shown hereby grgrs.ts AppQIees mratior^ to Supplement his Bt^ef par
4 copy c^wWch zs att=h^ berotoA ITISS+^ ORDERED,
t
^^.^•,^
BDD
'3 1 /b !a.-g :s-1Je.A.
-1ra0rZnz1 l16edb 41y11:^4644 GULIRT OF AP PAGE 02l02
,TL.1L -14-M9.1. 13: 32 FRflMtFRTE C i"t' CLK OF CTS 419 E24 68 73 T0: 4i92i34844 P. 005fs05
ap^^j^it a GmardzmAd Litem on.b,6a11'Of 1ds %w&d. PWwtiff C=rdao.n. Eggez brmsa& to r1^
^our,t',q atieai,oi3 ftt tla aost to t.ie Eauft, of p2yut.g a Guatdaat Ad Litem wo^.^.1.d be szgni^cant
and, watxZd im.poa upon amoutt^ alvsllab1e to pAy cmcl,itoza. P1ain^iffG^zardl.anl^gger dct`err^^dto
the Coun's3udgrnnt lt^ rega.r.ris to the appQitmen.^t o£ a Gumclian.AdL^tm Dzftd=t S0ltesz
dExd wt ^^ a Motion to appoint a a=ftn Ad L"aiem, Mzna,ozmdu2n in Suppart of appointing a
Gum-dia Ad Lft=x, Aaz• did he requast a Heartyag to Vpoint a Crawdzm. Ad Litcm,
T'be Court fouad &at a Oufsrdian Ad Litem ww ftot necesmy, irxfho Q=dS.^r%',;bZp Case 2007-
2o2& 1^efeada^^ DemSoa.tm appea1ed f1v Coirts
'C3cc3:sion ®n?anmary 194 2011 Appeal Case No. E-1 1»03. Onhnuary3,2011 the Cou3°t itta
land sale case 2007-2028-A l.ikew.we fpund ftt a Guardian A.cl Llt= ww wt ^ewmary.
Det`end=t Soltesz did not f,1.e an appeal of this Taadgment '-Eatry. ^ef6n.claat Ja= Soltts^ thm
filed a 9, #^m ii °Cfe lmd, m.lc case on Fcbru,ary I ? y 2011 fot a Mod.afied. Jtidgment of tlle
Decis9.on of Janvaq 3,2011 deoyxng tt^ appoinIzm,e:xtt Qf a Guardian Ad Litam. Pefendawt Dcon
St^^^eWs Motion ms d=iei F4bnmry22, 20S L From 46 d^^isiml)efendat^t bcan Soltesz
app^a.ied in Cm No. E- I 1 -0 15.
t)efendmt I^eat Sa1tesz has pteviausl^ zeizet tlle issue of the AppoittmerLt cf a Guaxel%an Ad
Lxt= l-A Appeal; E-10-0047 A.ssignmeat of E-Z°zoz I
THE TRIAL COURT ERROR T 0 TFIE PMJMICE OF TB7- A,Fl?'BLLANTAND THE '`.ARD,AND AI3TJSED nS DzSCF^MON BY FAI.LING TO ILWSA.. GUARDZA1`+1.AD LITEM APP'CWTFD POF, T^'3^ WARD AT .TM ME =ES7:A:TP. ^'rT,7ARDL&N F;(LE-D A LAWS'L r'tT A.C`rANST THE WARI). (F.AG3a IAPPELLAV'I''S BRIEF CASE NCJ, E-1M47 EXHMzT E),
4,
LUlI l : V ^U ^i ^ ? ^V^
-,_ . ; -
.^,i
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ERIE COUNTY, OHIOPROBATE DIVISION
^
In the Matter of ^ Case No. 20072028^
The Guardianship of * Judgment Entry
Edward I. Soltesz *^^
This matter having come before the Court on the Motion and Notice of Guardian of theEstate's position on appointment of guardian ad litem, the Court orders as follows:
Motion Denied. Guardian Ad Litem not necessary.
Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem required. Tom Sprunk to be appointed at thehourlyr rate of in Guardianship and Civil case.
Bob Egger to be paid at the same intervals and at the same rate as Guaidian AdLitem.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/ov? i' g=g DavzdAr Zeitzheim
^
:-; -
Er^E^'J ^ -i JPt.G^niE .^
IN THE CONiMON PLEAS COL)RT OF ERIE COUNTY, OHIOPROBATE DIVISION
^
In the Matter of * Case No. 20072028 A^
The Guardianship of ^ Judgment EntryEdward I. Soltesz ^
^^
This matter having come before the Court on the Motion and Notice of Guardian of theEstate's position on appointment of guardian ad litem, the Court orders as follows:
Motion Denied. Guardian Ad Litem not necessary.
Appoizitment of Guardian Ad Litem required. Tom Sprunk to be appointed at thehourly rate of in Guardianship and Civil case.
Bob Egger to be paid at the same intervals and at the same rate as Guardian Ad
Litem.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Al^^Judge David A. Z fizhe'm
C.Efi`oTiFACYgT 31.L^1'V7
This is to certify that copies of the attached Judgment Entry was sent by regular US Mail this 4"day of January, 2011.
Robert C. Egger, Esq.189 East Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Kimberly McKillips1911 Wade BoulevardSandusky, OH 44870
Diana Barrett409 S2nd StreetSandusky, OH 44870
E. Dean Soltesz1822 Parkford LaneColumbus, OH 43229-7084
ODJFS-c/o Attorney General of Ohioi20 E. Gay St, 21"` Fi.Columbus, OH 43215
Wickens, Herzer, Panza Cook & BatistaCo,35755 Chester AvenueAvon, OH 44011-1262Aiurllt V11 ECir Citizcias Baitkliig CGii.^f;a1iy
Citizens Bankirig Company1 00 E. Water StreetSandusky, OH 44870
K. Ronald Bailey & Associates Co. LPA220 W. Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
FFPM/Carmel Holding I, LLCAssignee of HSBC Card Services, Inc.2800 N. 44" St, Suite 310Phoenix, AZ 85008
Erie County Treasurerc/o Erie County Prosecutor247 Columbus AvenueSandusky, OH 44870
Thomas M. Bowlus207 North Park AvenueFremont, OH 43420
Croghan Colonial Bank232 Croghan StreetFremont, OH 43420
D. Jeffrey RengelRengel Law Office421 Jackson StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Richard E. GrubbeT oTl^, ixrLibbe, McGory tx° vrsrT`zleireii, i td.
1401 Cleveland Rd..Sandusky, OH 44870
The Honorable David A, Zeitzheim578 East Water StreetOak Harbor, OH 43449
Dennis J. MorrisonMeans, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., LPA2006 Kenmy Road
Columbus, OH 43221^^,^
Barbara J. Lamb, Deputy Clerk
f. ;, s ^ i Fr.. .., 21 1i_ 'i\ i .. ., ...
J^k
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ERIE COUNTY, GI3I0PROBATE DIVISION
^
In the Matter of ^ Case No. 20072028 A^
The Guardianship of X Judgment EntryEdward I. Soltesz *
x^
This matter having come before the Court on E. Dean Soltesz's Motion for ModifiedJudgment of the Decision of January 3, 2011 Denying the Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem,the Court orders as follows:
Motion Denied. Guardian Ad Litem not necessary.
IT IS SO CJRDERED.
.. r ^^
Judge David A. ^eieim
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that copies of the attached Judgment Entry was sent by regular US Mail thisJA'= , day of February, 2011.
Robert C. Egger, Esc1.189 East Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Kimberly Mc:Killips1911 Wade BoulevardSandusky, OH 44870
Diana Barrett409 52"G StreetSandusky, OH 44870
E. Dean Soltesz1822 Parkford LaneColumbus, OH 43229-7084
ODJFS-c; o Attorney General of Ohio120 E. Gay St, 21 St Fl.Columbus, OH 43215
Wickens, Herzer, Panza Cook & Batista Co.35765 Chester Avenue
Avon, OH 44011-1262Attorney for Citizens Banking Company
Citizens Banking Company100 E. Water StreetSandusky, OH 44870
FFPMi`Carmel Holding I, LLCAssignee of HSBC Card Services, Inc.2800 N. 44`" St, Suite 310Phoenix, AZ 85008
Erie County Treasurercio Erie County Prosecutor247 Columbus AvenueSanduslcy, OH 44870
Thomas M. Bowlus207 North Park AvenueFremont, OH 43420
Croghan Colonial Bank232 Croghan StreetFremozit, OH 43420
D. Jeffrey RengelRengel Law Office421 Jackson StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Richard E. GrubbeTone, Grubbe, McGory &1401 Cleveland Rd.Sandusky, OH 44870
K. Ronald Bailey & Associates Co. LPA220 W. Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Dennis J. MorrisonMeans, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., LPA2006 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43221
Verxneeren, Ltd.
The Honorable David A. Zeitzheim578 East Water StreetOak Harbor, OH 43449
Barbara J. Lamb, beputy Clerk
Soltes•r. JELS part pay 2-11 ^^
F-PlF r,t1 t)1)1?4q'rF rOtR1-
C^0 2 4 4110'1
MERU K. M^GOO . .,^,.a^In the Common Pleas Court of Er_ie County, Ohio PRQPATE J(JDGC;
PROBATE DIVISION
Robert C. EggerGuardi.an of the Estate ofEdward S. Soltesz
Case No. 07-2-02$ A
Plaintif.f
.%s .
Edward I. Soltesz, Et al
Defendants
JUDGMENT EN'T`RYREGARDING MOTION TOPARTIALY PAY CREDITORS
JUDGE
DAVID A. ZEITZHEIM
This matter came on for consideration of a Motion for
authority to partly pay creditors, filed by the Guardian of
the Estate filed on or about January 6, 2011, the Objection
thereto and Memorandum in Support filed by E. Dean Soltesz,
and the rebuttal filed by the Guardian of the Estate.
Although all parties were timely served., no party,
other than E. Dean Soltesz, has filed an objection to the
Motion and plan set out therein by the Guardian of the
Estate.
Upon due consideration of the Motion, the Objections
and the Rebuttal the Court finds said Motion well taken and
overrules the objections of E. Dean Soltesz thereto.
1
Soltesz JE LS part pay 2-] 1
It is therefore ordered that the Guardian of the
Estate is a.uthorized to proceed as follows:
1. Pay to Croghan Co_lonial Bank the amount of $2500
f.rom general guardianship funds as a full and final
compromise settlement of the amount of the Judgment Lien in
favor of Croghan Co1_onial Bank, and obtain a rel.ease of the
lien.
2. Enter into a partia.l settlement agreement with and
pay to claimant and mortgage holder K. Ronald Bailey one-
half of the principal owed to him plus interest thereon 3%.
Said interest being reduced from 6% set out i.n the
mortgage. The remaining one-half of the principal due to
K. Ronald Bailey is to continue to be due at 6% interest
from the onset date. This amount is to be paid from
Veterans Funds upon approval of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
3. Pay, from general guardianship funds, to E. Dean
Soltesz the amount of $2,616 which is 20% of the Judgment
awarded to him orixlis claim against the Ward's estate.
4. Pay, from general guardianship funds, to D.
Jeffery Rengel the amount of $686.00 which is 20% of the
2
Soltesz JF. LS part pay 2-1 1
Judgment awarded to him on his c?aim against the Ward's
estate.
5. Payment, from general guardianship funds, to the
Guardian of the Estate Robert C. Egger as partial Guardi.an
Fees the aznot7.nt of $2, 1_50 . 00, which is approximately 25% of
the total amount previously awarded. This payment was
previously authorized in a Judgment Entry filed herein on
or about October 28, 2010, and is confirmed.
'I'he Guardian of the Estate i s further authorized to
make payments totaling, approximately, $600 per month,
starting the month after this entry is filed so long as
said funds are reasonably available from the War_d's Estate,
The Guardian of the Estate is authorized to pay said
total amount of. $600 per month in an, approximately, pro
rata fashion accord-ng to the amount of balance of
principal remaining of the claim or fees due from the
Guardianship Funds to all the creditors listed in the
monthly payments column of the chart attached to the
motion.
The Guardian of the Estate is further authorized to
expend such funds as may be reasonably necessary to pay
3
Soltesz JE LS part pay 2-11
court costs and/o.r filing fees to secure recording and
filing of the release of any Judgment Lien or other Liens
which are compromi_sed and settled.
The Court further finds that there is no just cause
for delay.
IT IS 'FUxTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Entry shall
be served by the Clerk upon all parties.
/%
t^^1^'^
JUDGE DAVID A. ZE'^ZHEIM
Prepared at the direction of the Court;
r "-;
Robext C. Egger (Sup.Ct. #0007165)
Guardian of the Estate and Attorneyfor The Guardian of the Estate
4
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that copies of the attached Judgnient Entry was sent by regular US Mail this24th day of February, 2011.
Robert C. Egger, Esq.189 East Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Kimberly McKillips1911 Wade BoulevardSandusky, OH 44870
Diana Barrett409 52nd StreetSandusky, OH 44870
E. Dean Soltesz1822 Parkford LaneColumbus, OH 43229-7084
ODJFS-c/o Attorney General of Ohio120 E. CJay St, 215` Fl.Columbus, OH 43215
Wickens, I-lerzer, Panza Cook & Batista Co.35765 Chester Avenue
Avon, OH 44011-1262Attorney for Citizens Banking Company
Citizens Bat-Acing Company
100 E. Water Street
Sandusky, OH 44870
FFPM/Carziiel Holding I, LLCAssignee of HSBC Card Services, Inc.2800 N. 44`h St, Suite 310Phoenix, AZ 85008
Erie County Treasurerc!o Erie County Proseetitor247 Columbus AvenueSandusk.y, OH 44870
Thomas M. Bowlus207 North Park AvenueEremont, Ol_3 43420
Croghan Colonial Bat-k232 Croghan StreetFremont, O1-143420
D. Jeffrey RengelRengel Law Office421 Jackson StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Richard E. GzLzbbeTone, Grubbe, McGory &1401 Cleveland Rd.Sandusky, OH 44870
K. Ronald Bailey & Associates Co. LPA220 W. Market StreetSandusky, OH 44870
Dennis J. MorrisonMeans, Bicl3isner, Burkholder & Baker Co., LPA2006 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43221
Vemieeren, Ltd.
The Honorable David A. Zeitzheim578 East Water StreetOak Harbor, OH 43449
F^
yn:^-G^a..(3^^f .'^--""_ ^ ^^_`i^^^e....,_,--•^'L^'-^---._^.
Barbara J. Lamb, Depdty Clerk
Recommended