Volume 247 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Judgment affirmed. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an administrative appeal filed by appellant, Nippon Sushi and Steak, L.L.C. ("Nippon"), from two orders by defendant-appellee, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission (the "commission"). The common pleas court correctly determined that Nippon did not file a timely response to the commission's motion to dismiss, and its decision granting that motion did not deny Nippon the opportunity to respond. Neither Civ.R. 6(C)(1), which provides for an extended 28-day response period with respect to motions for summary judgment, nor Loc. R. 53.01 extended the 14-day response period for Nippon to respond to the commission's motion to dismiss. Nippon did not perfect its appeal in accordance with R.C. 119.12(D) and 4301.28(C) because the commission did not receive Nippon's notice of appeal within 21 days after the commission mailed its orders. Therefore, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over Nippon's appeal. The common pleas court did not err by not considering Nippon's motion for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment, as neither type of motion is properly filed in an administrative appeal.

Marital Property Separate Property Valuation Manifest Weight Continuance Self-Representation. Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as litigants with retained counsel and must accept the consequences of his or her own mistakes. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital. The party arguing that property is separate bears the burden of establishing that asset is not marital. Appellate courts review the classification of property under a manifest weight standard. Appellate courts review the valuation date of an asset under an abuse of discretion standard.

We adopt the magistrate's findings of fact and revise some conclusions of law. The evidence showed the amputation of relator's left middle finger severed some of his proximal phalanx, and R.C. 4123.57(B) thus required the commission to award relator the total loss of that finger. The commission's finding that relator lost no more than two-thirds of his left index finger, however, was supported by some evidence in the record. The requested writ of mandamus is granted in part and denied in part.

The trial court improperly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The District Court's decision dismissing appellant's Title VII retaliation claim "with prejudice" for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the unique procedural facts of this case, did not serve to bar appellant from pursuing a R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim in state court. The District Court's judgment did not meet the first element of res judicata/claim preclusion as it was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the retaliation claim. However, the trial court properly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 race discrimination claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The judgment met all the elements of res judicata/claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the race discrimination claim. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Case is remanded to the trial court.

In an action for declaratory judgment and injunction by landowners challenging the necessity of appropriations for public use and the type of appraisals to support a good faith offer prior to instituting appropriation proceedings under Revised Code Chapters 163 and 5501, summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Ohio Department of Transportation and Director Jack Marchbanks (collectively "ODOT") was warranted where the properties are being acquired to improve State Route 315 and the appraisals were sufficient as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee in a residential foreclosure case. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to compel appellee to produce the original note for inspection and to give an additional opportunity for discovery, pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F), prior to granting summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether appellee had satisfied all conditions precedent prior to filing its action. Judgment reversed and remanded.

option contract, breach of contract, fraud, magistrate's decision, objections to magistrate's decision, good faith and fair dealing

The trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff's retained expert witness, who was not timely disclosed, could not testify in plaintiff's case-in-chief or on rebuttal. However, the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing plaintiff's action under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) when plaintiff's violations of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's orders did not warrant such a severe sanction.