Volume 173 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

JURISDICTION – STANDING – MEDICAID: The trial court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction where the case was brought in the name of the Medicaid applicant and the applicant's authorized representative was never a party to the case. The trial court correctly affirmed appellant's Medicaid denial because appellant had the legal authority to sell her property, thus causing her countable resources to exceed Medicaid's resource limit.

CHOICE-OF-LAW – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – INDEMNITY: The trial court did not err in applying Ohio law because the place of performance and the location of the item were in Ohio. The indemnity agreement between the parties was not sufficiently particularized to overcome the employer's workers' compensation immunity.

R.C. 2929.144 R.C. 2929.14 Reagan Tokes Law indefinite non-life felony sentence ripeness due process separation of powers. The statutory sections codified under the Reagan Tokes Law are not unconstitutional, and the facial challenges advanced against the sentence imposed under R.C. 2929.144 are ripe for review in the direct appeal.

Trial court did not err in finding appellant waived right to arbitrate under totality of the circumstances where appellant was aware of the right to arbitrate invoked the trial court's jurisdiction by filing answer and counterclaim waited over six months from filing answer and counterclaim before filing motion for stay pending arbitration extensively participated in proceedings by filing discovery requests, motion to compel, and various responses and failed to assert defense of arbitration in answer.

Reagan Tokes Law constitutional challenges ripeness for review separation of powers doctrine procedural due process substantive due process void-for-vagueness doctrine. The issue is ripe for review. The law is unconstitutional. The law allows the executive branch to act as judge, prosecutor, and jury which violates the separation of powers doctrine. The law is facially void-for vagueness because it: does not provide fair and understandable notice of what behavior is prohibited gives the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction unfettered enforcement authority and fails to preclude discriminatory enforcement and fails to protect the unreasonable violation of constitutionally protected freedoms.

GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 32.1: The trial court erred in withdrawing defendant's guilty plea because once a trial court accepts a guilty plea, it may not sua sponte withdraw the plea under Crim.R. 32.1 absent a motion filed by the defendant.

Trial court's finding that there has not been a change of circumstances to warrant a change in the residential parent or modification of the child support order is not an abuse of discretion where although the children have stopped going with mother for her parenting time, the trial court attempts to restore the mother-child relationships, and where father is at least partially responsible for the breakdowns in the relationships.

Motion for reconsideration granted and decision in Key Realty, Ltd. v. Hall, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1237, 2021-Ohio-26 vacated where majority decision made obvious errors of fact and law. Consideration was exchanged for noncompete agreement where at-will independent contractor continued to perform services for employer after execution of agreement. Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for independent contractor on employer's breach-of-contract, business tort, and criminal claims.

Summary judgment marital interest business entities business interest statute of limitations jurisdiction tortious interference frivolous conduct res judicata issue preclusion oral contract discovery rule R.C. 2305.07 R.C. 2305.09 R.C. 2923.34(J) equitable tolling financial misconduct R.C. 2323.51 justification good faith. Affirmed trial court's decision to grant defendants summary judgment on the claims raised in the complaint and to grant plaintiff summary judgment on the counterclaims in a case arising from an agreed judgment entry of divorce that awarded plaintiff his former wife's marital interest in certain business entities, "whatever the interest may be." The doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to issues surrounding the enforceability of an oral contract for the sale of the ex-wife's interest in a corporation. The discovery rule did not apply to plaintiff's claim for breach of an oral contract, and the majority of the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, as was any claim for imposition of a constructive trust. To the extent the discovery rule applied to some of the claims, the evidence showed plaintiff became aware of his claims in 2011 during the course of the divorce proceedings, rendering claims in this matter untimely. The doctrine of equitable tolling was inapplicable. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims for financial misconduct with marital assets and for frivolous conduct. Summary judgment was properly granted in plaintiff's favor on the counterclaims for tortious interference with business relationships and frivolous conduct because plaintiff had justification for bringing his claims and acted in good faith reliance on the marital interest awarded to him in the judgment entry of divorce.

Reagan Tokes Law constitutionality of statute due process rebuttable presumption of release liberty interest notice opportunity to be heard minimum safeguards. The Reagan Tokes Law, which establishes an indefinite sentencing scheme for certain felonies, is unconstitutional in that it violates prison inmates' due process rights. The presumptive release date in R.C. 2967.271 creates a liberty interest. This liberty interest requires at least the minimum due process protections of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The statutory procedures found in R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) and used to rebut the presumptive release date do not provide the required due process safeguards.

State's appeal. The State appeals the trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding nine Google searches at appellee's trial. Two of the Google searches were properly excluded, and we affirm the trial court's decision as to those. The other seven Google searches were relevant, and their probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding them from use at trial. The trial court's decision is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Mandamus, R.C. 149.43, Sup.R. 44

In granting a default judgment to appellant, the trial court erred in failing to order interest using the contractual rate provided in the retail installment contract and security agreement. The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request for $100 in late fees without a hearing. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on appellant's request for late fees.