 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek12/29/2004
templated by R.C. Chapter 2111. As such, it is apparent that appellant's interests were not adequately protected at the settlement hearing by the Magistrate.
{ } This failure to protect appellant's interests, however, should not be attributed to appellee. Appellee had no obligation to protect appellant. Appellee had no duty to provide the Magistrate with medical information regarding appellant or protect his settlement proceeds. Furthermore, the majority opinion does not find that appellee engaged in any type of fraud. In effect, however, the majority opinion requires appellee to ensure that appellant's interests are protected or else face the possibility that a court-approved settlement will be reopened decades later. In this case, appellee obtained a full release, approved by the Probate Court and paid over the settlement funds. Under the majority's approach to Civ.R. 60(B)(5), appellee's judgment would not be considered final until appellant reached the age of majority and the statute of limitations had expired for appellant's claim. This position is inconsistent with the principal of the finality of judgments. See In re Guardianship Kelley, 172 Ohio St. 177, 181.
{ } In this case, any error in the proceedings must be placed firmly within the responsibility of the Magistrate. This is a very compelling case which probably should be addressed by the legislature after extensive hearings. The protection of a minor's interests should be by statute and may require appointment of counsel. It is not a matter for this Court to remedy on these facts.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|