 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek12/29/2004
0,000.00 settlement to "Walter Matzaszek, as parent & natural guardian of Adam Matzaszek." By January 12, 1989, appellant's father was unable to verify to the Probate Court that the funds had been deposited in the restricted bank account as the Magistrate had directed. Appellant's father claimed he spent the money on appellant's "astronomical" medical bills, but appellant received none of the money and it is gone.
{ } After the settlement, appellant claims his medical condition deteriorated drastically and remains poor. He claims his future medical care and lost earning capacity total millions of dollars.
C. Subsequent Proceedings
{ } In 1995, appellant's father, allegedly acting on both his own behalf and appellant's, contacted CT Corporation System inquiring as to whether any settlement documents had been signed which would preclude a lawsuit. The letter notified appellee that appellant's father was investigating the "extent of communications that occurred between Ford Motor Company and Mr. Matyaszek [appellant's father] at or near the time of the accident" in order to "consider initiating formal proceedings." Appellee did not respond to the letter and no proceedings were initiated as a result of that contact. It appears that these attorneys are connected with appellant's current counsel.
{ } On October 2, 1999, a year before filing the motion to vacate at issue here, appellant's attorneys again contacted appellee with regard to the settlement. Appellant's attorneys were involved in a lawsuit against appellee brought by appellant's brother. Appellant claims that discovery obtained through that proceeding permitted him to pursue the instant proceeding.
{ } On April 19, 2000, appellant's current counsel was appointed as his guardian.
D. Motion to Vacate
{ } On October 4, 2000, appellant, through his guardian, moved to vacate judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) on the grounds that the judgment was procured against his interests as a result of fraud upon the court and that his due process rights were violated because the judgment was taken against his interests and without representation.
E. Magistrate Poulos Grants Motion to Vacate
{ } On January 23, 2001, Probate Court Magistrate Poulos granted appellant's motion to vacate. The Magistrate found that R.C. 2111.18, which governs the resolution of a minor's claim for injury with "advice, approval, and consent of the probate court[,]" expresses a policy to protect minors. The Magistrate found that appellant's parents and appellee's attorneys had an obligation to present accurate and complete information to the Court. These duties to provide information to the court were especially compelling because no guardian ad litem had been appointed to protect appellant's interests.
{ } The Magistrate found that Dr. McLaughlin's letter should have been provided to Magistrate Wertz in order to insure that appellant's interests were protected. Magistrate Poulos noted that, without this letter, Magistrate Wertz himself testified that he would not have approved the settlement because appellant's injuries were far more serious than represented to him. Magistrate Poulos found that both appellant's parents, by failing to disclose his true condition, and appellee's attorneys, by failing to provide Dr. McLauglin's letter, perpetrated a fraud on the court.
{ } The Magistrate further found that the failure to disclose the $12,327.61 and $12,143.25 paid to appellant's parents for his medical bills and the cost of the Bronco was also a failure to provide proper information to the court. The Magistrate held that Sup.R. 68(B) in existence at the tim
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.
|
|