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.

Bradley v. Blume

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto

November 6, 2017

LARRY W. BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T. KEVIN BLUME, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

          Larry W. Bradley, Ross Correctional Institution, Chillicothe, Ohio, pro se appellant.

          Daniel P. Ruggiero, Ruggiero & Salyer, L.P.A., Portsmouth Ohio, for appellees T. Kevin Blume and The Blume Law Firm.

          J.B. Marshall, Jr., Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellees Sam Bradley and Preston Walters.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JUDGE

         {¶1} This is an appeal from consolidated cases granting summary judgment to T. Kevin Blume, The Blume Law Firm, Sam Bradley, and Preston Walters on Larry W. Bradley's civil actions claiming that they conspired in guardianship and estate proceedings to deprive him of his inheritance from his parents.

         {¶2} Larry W. Bradley asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. We cannot address the merits of his contentions because the trial court's entries in the consolidated cases did not constitute a final appealable order in that they did not resolve Sam Bradley's counterclaim and did not make an express determination of no just reason for delay. We dismiss the appeal.

         I. FACTS

         {¶3} Larry W. Bradley "is currently incarcerated for a first degree felony aggravated robbery conviction that occurred in Scioto County, as well as a fourth degree felony receiving stolen property conviction that occurred in Jackson County, and * * * his scheduled date of release from prison is not until November 25, 2018." Bradley v. Hooks, 4th Dist. Ross No. 16CA3576, 2017-Ohio-4105, ¶ 3 and fn. 2 ("Both trial courts and appellate courts can take judicial notice of filings readily accessible from a court's website").

         {¶4} In December 2013, he filed three separate pro se complaints in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas against T. Kevin Blume and The Blume Law Firm (Case No. 13CIH224), Sam Bradley (Case No. 13CIH225), and Preston Walters (Case No. 13CIH227). Although not entirely clear because of the rambling nature of the complaints, it appears that Larry claimed in Case No. 13CIH224 that: (1) Blume and The Blume Law Firm conspired with Sam Bradley to deprive him of his inheritance by filing frivolous motions in the probate court without first giving him the opportunity to consent; (2) Blume and The Blume Law Firm conspired with the probate court because his objections were never addressed by the court; (3) Blume and The Blume Law Firm were guilty of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241; (4) Blume and The Blume Law Firm were guilty of deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242; and (5) Blume and The Blume Law Firm were guilty of violating U.C.C. 2-301, misrepresentation, abuse of estate, and embezzlement of estate property.

         {¶5} In Case No. 13CIH225, Larry alleged that: (1) Sam Bradley fraudulently acquired access to the estate of Betty Bradley to deprive him of his inheritance; and (2) Sam Bradley embezzled $300, 000 worth of cash and property from him in violation of the U.C.C, the U.P.C., and federal and state laws.

         {¶6} In Case No. 13CIH227, Larry claimed that Preston Walters conspired with The Blume Law Firm to deprive him of his inheritance.

         {¶7} Although each complaint included a space for the allegations to be notarized, they were not. The defendants answered by denying Larry W. Bradley's claims, and Sam Bradley filed a counterclaim against him.

         {¶8} The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and exhibits. Larry W. Bradley filed a memorandum in opposition, which did not include any supporting summary-judgment evidence.

         {¶9} In Case No. 13CIH224, the trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on Larry W. Bradley's claims against them, but did not rule on Sam Bradley's pending counterclaim and did not make an express determination of no just ...


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.