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.

Park Street Group LLC v. White

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

March 31, 2017

PARK STREET GROUP, LLC Appellee
v.
REANNA A. WHITE, et al. Appellants

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV 2015-08-4212

          TONY TAYLOR, pro se, Appellant.

          LAURENCE A. LASKY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO Judge.

         {¶1} Appellant, Tony Taylor Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Park Street Group, LLC, Successor in Interest to Harbour Portfolio VII, LP ("Park Street Group"), finding Appellant's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment without merit, and dismissing Appellant's counterclaim. This Court reverses.

         I.

         {¶2} In May 2014, Harbour Portfolio VII, LP, entered into a land contract with Tony Taylor Jr. and Reanna A. White, for the property commonly known as 1189 Sherman Street, Akron, Ohio 44301. Payments were to be sent to a management company: National Asset Advisors, LLC. On May 20, 2015, Harbour Portfolio VII, LP, assigned its interest in the land contract to Park Street Group, LLC. Park Street Group sent a 10-day letter of "right to cure" to Mr. Taylor and Ms. White in May 2015, and stated that it served Mr. Taylor and Ms. White with a 3-day notice to leave the premises in June 2015. On July 14, 2015, Park Street Group filed a complaint in the Akron Municipal Court for the forfeiture of the land contract, money damages, and requesting restitution of the premises, along with an action for forcible entry and detainer. The complaint alleged that Mr. Taylor and Ms. White were in breach of the land contract by failure to make monthly payments and were in arrears in the amount of $3, 982.20.

         {¶3} In July 2015, Mr. Taylor filed an answer to the complaint, a motion to dismiss, and a counterclaim against Park Street Group, alleging that the land contract was void as the City of Akron had condemned the property prior to his purchase and the condemnation had not been disclosed to him. Park Street Group filed its motion for summary judgment and an answer to the counterclaim in August 2015. Upon the motion of Mr. Taylor, the municipal court ordered the case to be transferred to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss, a motion "for third party counterclaim, " and an "answer" to Park Street Group's motion for summary judgment in December 2015. Mr. Taylor further filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss in February 2016.

         {¶4} On April 29, 2016, the court of common pleas entered an order granting Park Street Group's motion for summary judgment, finding Mr. Taylor's motion for dismissal and summary judgment without merit, dismissing Mr. Taylor's counterclaim for failure to state any claims upon which relief could be granted, and denying all other pending motions as moot. The court further indicated that Park Street Group would forego its right to recover past-due payments and granted restitution of the premises and forfeiture of the land contract. Mr. Taylor now appeals, raising four assignments of error for review.

         II.

         {¶5} "[A]n appellant's assignment of error provides this Court with a roadmap to guide our review." Taylor v. Hamlin-Scanlon, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23873, 2008-Ohio-1912, ¶ 12. We note at the outset that although Mr. Taylor lists four assignments of error at the beginning of his brief, the body of the brief does not separate out the individual assignments of error for analysis as required by Loc.R. 7(B)(7). The majority of the brief consists of large blocks of quoted case law, but does not offer a clear or structured articulation of the arguments as they apply to this case. We will only consider the four assignments of error designated by Mr. Taylor, and will not infer additional assignments from the body of the text. This Court declines to chart its own course when an appellant fails to provide guidance. Young v. Slusser, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 08CA0019, 2008-Ohio-4650, ¶ 7.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

         THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING APPELLANT'S [COUNTERCLAIM].

         {¶6} Mr. Taylor argues the circumstances of this case did not justify ...


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.