Volume 248 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Nunc pro tunc motion for summary judgment deed restrictive covenant quiet title action declaratory judgment doctrine of merger by ownership self-termination provision plain and unambiguous language additional authority App.R. 21(I) new assignment of error on appeal. The trial court erroneously issued a nunc pro tunc entry to change its ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment. Further, the Use Restriction in dispute was not subject to the doctrine of merger by ownership and had not terminated pursuant to the self-termination provision. Therefore, the trial court erred when it granted plaintiff-appellee's motion for summary judgment on the quiet title claim. Relying on the terms of the Use Restriction, which were plain and unambiguous, the trial court erroneously determined the restriction did not apply to the uses proposed by the plaintiff-appellee and thereby granted summary judgment on the declaratory judgment issue. At the court of appeals, the defendant-appellant was precluded from arguing a new assignment of error that was not raised in the appellate brief and from introducing new documents — not case law — that were erroneously referenced as additional authorities under App.R. 21(I).

sufficiency of the evidence theft value of stolen property R.C. 2913.02 R.C. 2913.61(D) fair market value replacement value breaking and entering vandalism merger sentencing possessing criminal tools

CIVIL – summary judgment Civ.R. 56 de novo review Appellant's $1,400 economic impact payment under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is not exempt from garnishment to pay court costs judgment affirmed.

The common pleas court properly denied the motion to vacate the arbitration award because (1) the award was sufficiently definite, providing clear instructions for compliance and (2) the arbitrator's factual determinations and interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement were based on a reasonable understanding of the factual record and within the bounds of a permissible interpretation of the agreement.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress video evidence that he was engaged in selling methamphetamine where the confidential informant was invited to appellant's home for a prearranged transaction. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to compel discovery of scale calibration documentation where appellant failed to demonstrate how it would be favorable to his case. Appellant lacked a final appealable order to appeal the denial of his motion for acquittal as to the second count of the indictment because the jury was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial and dismissal without prejudice as to that count. The state did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by commenting on the defense's failure to present witnesses contradicting the evidence of drug dealing. Appellant was not denied a fair trial due to cumulative error.

CONFRONTATION CLAUSE — EVID.R. 403 — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not admit a victim's testimony about the information he received from DoorDash, that someone had attempted to fraudulently use his credit card, in violation of defendant's right to confront witnesses against him where the record did not establish that the DoorDash statement was testimonial and, even if the statement was testimonial, the testimony was offered for the permissible nonhearsay purpose of explaining the victim's use of defendant's name in his search on Facebook, where he found photographs from which he and others identified defendant as the person involved in the crimes charged. The trial court did not commit plain error under Evid.R. 403(A) in admitting the testimony of a police officer that established that defendant was connected to an individual whose fingerprints were found on the cellphones recovered shortly after the phones were stolen. Defendant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence or based on insufficient evidence where evidence was presented that identified defendant as the person who committed the crimes charged and the jury was in the best position to determine the weight and the credibility of the evidence.

RESTITUTION – R.C. 2929.18 – VICTIM – MARSY'S LAW – AGENCY: Where defendant, an attorney, pled guilty to theft for failing to deposit funds received from clients of his law firm into the firm's IOLTA account and for taking those funds, the trial court did not err in ordering that defendant pay restitution to the firm and to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, both entities that had reimbursed the clients from whom defendant had stolen.

Civ.R. 12(B)(6), failure to state a claim R.C. Chapter 1707, Ohio Securities Act R.C. 1707.43(A), remedies of purchaser in unlawful sale of securities. Appellants contended that appellees actively participated in and aided another in making unlawful sales of illegal securities in violation of R.C. 1707.43(A). Construing all inferences in a light most favorable to the appellants, the allegations set forth in the complaint were legally sufficient to set forth a claim for relief under R.C. 1707.43(A).

Trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the conviction was never appealed and the time for filing an appeal had expired.

The trial court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's divorce complaint based solely on her refusal to submit documentation regarding her immigration status. Judgment reversed and remanded.