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.

Brust v. Franklin County Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

December 19, 2017

Shawn K. Brust, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Franklin County Sheriff's Office et al., Defendants-Appellees.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 14CV-13459

         On brief:

          Shawn K. Brust, pro se.

         On brief:

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, for appellees.

          DECISION

          BROWN, J.

         {¶ 1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Shawn K. Brust, from a decision and entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Franklin County Sheriffs Office and Zach Scott, and denying appellant's motion for partial summary judgment.

         {¶ 2} The following background facts, essentially not in dispute, are drawn primarily from the trial court's summary judgment decision filed December 1, 2016. On August 22, 1997, appellant was arrested and charged in Franklin C.P. No. 97CR-4790 with one count of aggravated murder. At the time of his arrest, appellant's vehicle and its contents were impounded by appellee, Franklin County Sheriffs Office. On November 24, 1997, the State of Ohio filed a civil forfeiture action in Franklin C.P. No. 97CV-10411 with respect to the vehicle, a 1986 Isuzu Trooper. On December 24, 1997, counsel for appellant filed an answer in the forfeiture action.

         {¶ 3} Following a jury trial in the criminal proceeding, appellant was found not guilty of aggravated murder, but guilty of the lesser-included offense of murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years to life on the murder conviction, with an additional three years for a firearm specification.

         {¶ 4} On April 27, 1999, the trial court stayed the civil forfeiture action in case No. 97CV-10411 due to a pending appeal in the criminal case. On March 10, 2014, the state moved to lift the stay and re-open the case. On March 11, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion and lifted the stay.

         {¶ 5} On March 20, 2014, appellant entered a pro se appearance in the forfeiture case after his counsel withdrew from the matter. On April 28, 2014, appellant requested a continuance of the trial date, which the trial court granted. Appellant subsequently filed several motions requesting the trial court permit him to make an appearance at trial despite his incarceration. On June 27, 2014, the state dismissed the forfeiture action.

         {¶ 6} On July 3, 2014, appellant filed a motion in the criminal case (No. 97CR-4790) seeking the return of his vehicle. On August 13, 2014, he filed a second request in the criminal case for the return of his vehicle and all property inside, including tools. On September 30, 2014, appellant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the state failed to file a response to his motions. On October 1, 2014, the trial court in case No. 97CR-4790 granted appellant's motion to return seized property (i.e., the 1986 Isuzu Trooper). On October 9, 2014, appellant filed a motion in that case requesting the trial court clarify its decision rendered October 1, 2014, on the basis that the court's order made no reference to appellant's tools that were inside the vehicle. Appellant also requested special damages, interest and compensation as to the unreturned tools, and other property. On November 3, 2014, the state filed a new appearance in the criminal case (No. 97CR-4790) and filed a memorandum contra appellant's request for special damages or compensation. On January 14, 2015, the trial court filed an entry denying appellant's motion to clarify the court's decision of October 1, 2014.

         {¶ 7} On December 24, 2014, appellant filed his complaint in the instant action against appellees for "failure to redeliver, " raising two claims; specifically, appellant's first claim requested the return of his vehicle, while the second claim requested that appellees return his personal property, i.e., the tools inside the vehicle, which he alleged had a "reasonable replacement value" around $6, 000 to $7, 000.

         {¶ 8} On January 7, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, asserting appellant abandoned any claim he had to the property through his own neglect. On January 15, 2015, appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On February 3, 2015, the trial court filed a decision and entry granting appellees' motion to dismiss on the basis appellant failed to comply with R.C. ...


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.