Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haynes v. Haynes

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

January 6, 2017

MICHELLE HAYNES Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RICHARD HAYNES Defendant-Appellant

         Civil appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CV 00729

         Dismissed

          For Plaintiff-Appellee DARCY SHAFER.

          For Defendant-Appellant RICHARD HAYNES PRO SE.

          JUDGES: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          Gwin, J.,

         {¶1} Appellant appeals the June 9, 2016 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.

         Facts & Procedural History

         {¶2} Appellee Michelle Haynes, appellant Richard Haynes, and James Haynes are tenants-in-common of the property located at 13638 National Road, Thornville, Ohio. Each owns an undivided one-third interest in the property. On August 27, 2015, appellee filed a complaint for partition of the property. Appellant and James filed an answer on September 23, 2015. Appellee filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2015 and appellant and James filed an answer to the amended complaint on October 28, 2015.

         {¶3} On February 29, 2016, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant and James filed an objection on March 16, 2016. Appellant filed a reply on March 28, 2016. On April 4, 2016, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. The memorandum of decision ordered counsel for appellee to submit a journal entry.

         {¶4} The trial court issued a journal entry on June 9, 2016. The trial court found appellee was entitled to a judgment entry of partition. The trial court appointed a commissioner to partition and evaluate the property and report back to the trial court. The trial court stated that within ten (10) days after the filing of the report of the commissioner, either appellant or appellee could file objections to the commissioner's report. The trial court further ordered the commissioner to return a just valuation of the property and, if the trial court approves the commissioner's finding and valuation, appellee and appellant would each have ten (10) days to elect to take the property at its appraised value. Finally, the trial court provided that if the parties failed to elect to buy the property at its appraised value, a writ of partition "shall issue."

         {¶5} After appellant filed his notice of appeal, the commissioner filed his report in the case. However, due to the filing of appellant's notice of appeal, the trial court was unable to take further action on the commissioner's report.

         {¶6} Appellant appeals the June 9, 2016 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error:

         {¶7} "I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.