 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mattimore v. Grant8/31/2005
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
{ } Appellant, Scott Mattimore, appeals the decision of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment to Appellee, Lois J. Grant. This Court affirms.
{ } Appellant filed a pro se "State Tort Complaint for Personal Injury to Property and Alternatively for Declaratory Judgment" against Appellee on February 12, 2004. Appellant claimed that Appellee wrongfully withheld his personal property at her residence following his incarceration in Madison Correctional Institution in January, 2003. Appellant also asserted that Appellee had deposited the payroll checks issued to him immediately prior to his incarceration, as well as his state and federal income tax checks, for her personal use. Appellant stated the amount of the payroll checks totaled approximately $50.00, while his state income tax check was in the amount of $112.00 and federal income tax check was in the amount of $534.00. Additionally, Appellant claimed that he had loaned Appellee $1200.00 from other payroll checks, which she had not repaid. In his request for relief, Appellant stated that Appellee should be held liable to him for the amount of money loaned to her and from his payroll checks, and he requested that she make accommodations to him for the return of his personal property. Appellee's signed certified mail receipt showing service of the complaint was docketed by the trial court on March 4, 2004.
{ } Appellee amended his complaint on March 23, 2004, to include the specific amounts of the tax checks, as stated above. As Appellee had not answered the complaint within 28 days, Appellant filed a motion for default judgment on April 20, 2004. A default judgment hearing was set for June 8, 2004. Appellee filed a motion for leave to plead on June 8, 2004, which the trial court granted. On that same date, Appellee's counsel entered a notice of appearance and filed Appellee's answer to the complaint.
{ } On September 9, 2004, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant filed a Motion to Strike on September 27, 2004. Appellant filed a response to the motion for summary judgment on November 15, 2004, and on December 8, 2004, the trial court granted summary judgment for Appellee.
{ } Appellant filed his notice of appeal with this Court regarding the summary judgment decision of December 8, 2004, asserting one assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"The trial court erred and abused judicial discretion to grant Appellee's motion for summary judgment when the Appellee did not meet her burden of proof to sustain the granting of such motion contrary to [Civ.R.] 56."
{ } In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant asserts that Appellee did not meet her burden of proof regarding her summary judgment motion, and therefore, it was an error to grant summary judgment in her favor. We disagree.
{ } Appellate courts consider an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. Unlike an abuse of discretion standard, a de novo review requires an independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711. Thus, this Court applies the same standard as the trial court, viewing the facts of the case in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|