OF APPELLANT E. DEAN SOLTESZ MEMORANDUM … FOR APPELLEE FFPM/CARMEN, HOLDING I, LLC Ohio Dept. of...

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) [email protected]

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) [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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 [email protected]

^ ^_:...

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 ^.ârd 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, ,5èe,Tyz re the tnicrrdiansîp 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,

î.. F^^ ôt/R r tS

OF A..^FEAI,^ O'F 011:0',-'vT T A'r^' Î^^`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, Eêan 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^Î ^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

DECT5ê^^

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

^^;pêci and that we were unable to proîu^ ^^ re^^^rûe^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.îP^êd, &e Afatthows v, .Adatthewv, 5 Ohio Apg.3d 140, 450 N.E.2d 21$ (1Oth

^'^ ^ ^^`'îg to eÎai^: hzs ^lay in seeking zhe^s^ ^ _t::s

r-ecoxds is unperûasive. 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.

Ì'homas I Q^wLk, J.

Stohen A. Yarbrau& J.ÔNCt.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 ôulity 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 tîe co^ o^` a5^1êaZs. TIiere^'oz^^ e cur ^,^l^ c^ t tîll 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 iaî 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 +^ÛnY COM:^ Otr APPEALsSEM. A.l^^^LLANT DISTWCT

ROBERT C, E4ÊP,GtJARDIAN C3F tHE EST'A'ÔF 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{Û'^-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`tSÎCY, t^R 44870419-626W1 917FAX 419-62l-1S44

T'hc Ccauft for good erxyse shown hereby grgrs.ts AppQIees mratior^ to Supplement his Btêf 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^^jît a GmardzmAd Litem on.b,6a11'Of 1ds %w&d. PWwtiff C=rdao.n. Eggez brmsa& to r1^

ôur,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. P1ainîffG^zardl.anl^gger dctèrr^^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& 1êfeada^^ 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 êwmary.

Detènd=t Soltesz did not f,1.e an appeal of this Taadgment '-Eatry. êf6n.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^^êWs Motion ms d=iei F4bnmry22, 20S L From 46 d^îsiml)efendat^t bcan Soltesz

appâ.ied in Cm No. E- I 1 -0 15.

t)efendmt Iêat 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:


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:


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


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


Richard E. GrubbeTone, Grubbe, McGory &1401 Cleveland Rd.Sandusky, 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


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


Richard E. GzLzbbeTone, Grubbe, McGory &1401 Cleveland Rd.Sandusky, 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:^-Gâ..(3^^f .'^--""_ ^ ^^_ì^^ê....,_,--•^'L^'-^---._^.

Barbara J. Lamb, Depdty Clerk

OF APPELLANT E. DEAN SOLTESZ MEMORANDUM … FOR APPELLEE FFPM/CARMEN, HOLDING I, LLC Ohio Dept. of...

Documents

Transcript of OF APPELLANT E. DEAN SOLTESZ MEMORANDUM … FOR APPELLEE FFPM/CARMEN, HOLDING I, LLC Ohio Dept. of...