Volume 242 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

CONTRACTS – REAL ESTATE – CIV.R. 15(E) – MATERIAL BREACH – ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY –R.C. 4735.21 : The trial court erred in dismissing the property owner's supplemental counterclaim for slander of title brought against its property-management company on statute-of-limitations grounds because the supplemental counterclaim filed under Civ.R. 15(E) related back to the date of the property owner's original counterclaim. The trial court's determination after trial that the property owner materially breached the property-management contract by terminating the contract without giving the management company the required 60 days' notice and that the management company did not anticipatorily repudiate the contract was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the evidence presented at trial showed that the parties' relationship began to deteriorate regarding financial issues, that the management company proposed a way to continue the relationship and the owner did not respond, and that the management company notified the owner that it would no longer perform repair work, which would require further extension of financial credit, but that it would continue to provide management duties. The trial court's decision dismissing the property owner's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the property-management company after trial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the property owner claimed that the management company's decision to hire a registered sex offender as a caretaker of the property placed tenants in danger, but the property owner failed to show that the caretaker's placement caused any injury the property owner claimed that the management company engaged in self-dealing by charging the property owner a commission for finding the caretaker as a tenant and by charging the owner for the caretaker's labor, but the owner would have been responsible for both charges under the contract, and it just so happened that the management company found one person to fill both roles the property owner claimed that the management company mishandled security deposits, but the trial court found in favor of the property owner on its breach-of-contract counterclaim for the mishandled security deposits, and the property owner did not show any damages separate from the breach-of-contract counterclaim. The trial court erred in failing to apply R.C. 4735.21 to the breach-of-contract claims brought by the property-management company, a limited liability company, against the property owner because a limited liability company qualifies as a "person" for purposes of R.C. 4735.21, and a person cannot seek recovery for real estate broker activities without first proving a valid real estate license under R.C. Chapter 4735. [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not err in holding that limited liability companies ("LLCs") did not need to be licensed as real estate brokers to recover damages under R.C. 4735.21 for claims relating to real estate broker activities because the General Assembly did not include LLCs in the list of entities regulated by that statute and because an LLC does not qualify as a "person" under that statute based on the text and structure of the statute and the usage of those terms throughout the chapter.]

Motion to dismiss preindictment delay actual prejudice deceased witness rape R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) kidnapping R.C. 2905.01(A)(4) sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss due to preindictment delay where defendant did not show that he sustained actual prejudice as a result of the preindictment delay. Considering each item of allegedly "lost" or "unavailable" evidence, including lost recording of 911 call, lost clothing, lost photographs and lost medical records, in light of other evidence available at the time of the indictment and the relevance of the allegedly unavailable evidence to the defense, defendant failed to show that the items, if available, would have meaningfully impacted his case. Speculation that deceased or missing witness could have had information favorable to defense likewise did not meet defendant's burden of showing actual prejudice. Defendant's convictions for rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4) were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where victim testified that sex was not consensual, witnesses testified regarding the victim's injuries following the incident and the state presented DNA evidence from the victim's sexual-assault examination kits that linked defendant to the rape.

breach of oral agreement statute of frauds "not to be performed within one year" compliance with local rules prejudice.

foreclosure Civ.R. 12(B)(2) lack of personal jurisidiction proper service certified mail hearing Civ.R. 60(B) Civ.R. 4.1(A) Civ.R. 55 motion for default judgment App.R. 16 supersedeas bond Civ.R. 62(B) R.C. 2505.14

The trial court erred in finding that a debt due to husband's parents was not a marital debt, as wife failed to establish the debt was husband's alone. The parol evidence rule did not apply because husband's parents were not attempting to enforce the debt rather, it was subject to equitable distribution in the court's division of marital assets and liabilities. Judgment reversed with respect to the division of marital property and remanded for further proceedings related to that issue. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.

CRIMINAL - Article I, Section 10a(B) of the Ohio Constitution Marsy's Law standing right to full and timely restitution R.C. 2929.20(K) community control imposed following judicial release a trial court's decision whether or not to revoke community control following judicial release abuse of discretion R.C. 2929.20(K) is discretionary.

CRIMINAL - Violating a Protection Order R.C. 2919.27 competence to stand trial R.C. 2945.37 when competency raised after the start of trial a court must hold a hearing only for good cause shown or on the court's own motion due process requires court to sua sponte hold a competency hearing when presented with sufficient indicia of incompetence abuse of discretion mental illness is not synonymous with incompetency despite peculiar nature of appellant's trial testimony, appellant did not demonstrate sufficient indicia of incompetency to find trial court abused its discretion by not sua sponte holding a hearing.