Friday First District Roundup 10-25-19

Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.

Interested in getting these weekly updates sent right to your inbox? Sign up here!

In re: R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B.
Case #C190405

Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:

In these consolidated appeals, mother and the fathers of two of her children each appeal from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting permanent custody of R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) and denying motions for legal custody of the children filed by various family members. Finding no error in the grant of permanent custody, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Estate of Daniel Neal v. Lillie White Andrew Warren
Case # C180579

Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:

Plaintiff-appellant the Estate of Daniel Neal, through its administrator Sherri Neal, (“the Estate”) appeals from a judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, after a bench trial, in favor of defendant-appellee Lillie White. The Estate sought in part to recover from White, based on a quasi-contract theory for unjust enrichment, a sum of money for rent. This amount was equal to the reasonable value of the benefit White had received by residing at the Estate’s property after Daniel’s death without paying for the privilege. Because the trial court applied the law incorrectly when disposing of the Estate’s quasi-contract claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

State of Ohio v. Kalupe Wilson
Case #C180461

Quote from Judgment Entry:

Defendant-appellant Kalupe Wilson appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that Wilson violated his community-control sanctions and imposing a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. Raising one assignment of error, Wilson presents two arguments for our review. Wilson first argues that the trial court violated his due process and Crim.R. 11 rights by failing to advise him of the nature of the rule violations prior to accepting his no-contest plea. Minimum requirements of due process apply to communitycontrol-revocation hearings. State v. King, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-010330, 2002 WL 125616, *2 (Feb. 1, 2002). Due process does not mandate a Crim.R. 11 colloquy for no-contest pleas to community-control violations. State v. McAfee, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130567, 2014-Ohio-1639, ¶ 10; State v. Phelps, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-150204 and C-150205, 2016-Ohio-4673, ¶ 12.

Robert A. Goering, Treasurer, Hamilton County, Ohio v. Joseph Guinn
Case # C180528

Quote from Judgment Entry:

Two years ago the Hamilton county prosecutor instituted a tax foreclosure action on defendant-appellant Joseph Guinn’s property pursuant to R.C. 5721.18. At that time Mr. Guinn owed several years’ worth of back taxes on the property and it was certified as delinquent. The county eventually moved for summary judgment on the foreclosure, which was ultimately granted in its favor. From this grant of summary judgment Mr. Guinn now appeals, raising four assignments of error challenging various aspects of the court’s grant of summary judgment and jurisdiction over the case.

State of Ohio v. Timothy Fullbeck
Case #C180373

Quote from Judgment Entry:

In response to a grand jury indictment charging him with ten counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, defendant Timothy Fullbeck entered into a plea agreement, pleading no contest to two counts of pandering in exchange for the state dismissing the remaining eight. The plea agreement also included an aggregate prison sentence of three years. In turn, the trial court accepted his no contest plea and accordingly sentenced Mr. Fullbeck to 18 months on each count, to run consecutively, thereby equaling the recommended three year sentence. Mr. Fullbeck now appeals, advancing three assignments of error, challenging in his first and second assignments aspects of his sentence, and asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his third.

Judy Young, Cecil Young v. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., UC Health, West Chester Hospital, LLC, Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General,
Case #C180193

Quote from Judgment Entry:

Plaintiffs-appellants Judy and Cecil Young appeal from the trial court’s dismissal their claims against defendants-appellees Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc. (“CAST”).1 Durrani had performed spinal surgeries on Judy Young in November 2008 and October 2009.

The Youngs claim that the surgeries were medically unnecessary and have left Judy physically impaired and in constant pain. The Youngs filed this action in October 2014 asserting claims against Durrani, CAST, and other defendants, sounding in negligence, negligent credentialing and retention, loss of consortium, fraud, products liability, spoliation of evidence, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.