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.

Justice v. Schell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

March 30, 2018

RICHARD JUSTICE, et al. Appellees
v.
ERIC SCHELL Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV 2014-03-1566

          ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          IRVING B. SUGERMAN, Attorney at Law, for Appellees.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JULIE A. SCHAFER, Judge.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Eric Schell, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting Plaintiffs-Appellees, Richard Justice, James Whited, Edna Peteya, and David Banks' (collectively, "Petitioners"), petition for a civil stalking protection order. We affirm.

         I.

         {¶2} Petitioners are public officials and/or residents of Lake more, Ohio who were involved in a contentious zoning dispute with Mr. Schell. In 2012, Mr. Schell filed an application for a zoning permit to construct an over sized garage on his residential property in the Village of Lake more. Although the Village initially granted Mr. Schell's permit, it was later determined that the permit had been issued in error. Accordingly, the Village later issued a stop-work order to Mr. Schell after construction of his garage had already commenced. The Board of Zoning Appeals subsequently denied Mr. Schell's requested zoning variance. Litigation ultimately ensued concerning the Village's issuance and revocation of the permit, and eventually an injunction was issued enjoining Mr. Schell from constructing the garage. Petitioners assert that after these zoning issues began, Mr. Schell began harassing, stalking, and/or threatening them and/or members of their family.

         {¶3} Thus, in early 2014, Petitioners individually petitioned for a civil stalking protection order against Mr. Schell pursuant to R.C. 2903.214 and each case was initially assigned to a different trial judge. Petitioners sought relief on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective family members. The magistrate assigned to each case granted an ex parte protection order. Although the cases were not yet consolidated, a magistrate eventually held a joint evidentiary hearing on Petitioners' respective petitions on June 10, 2016 and June 28, 2016. At the full hearing, each party was represented by counsel, was provided with an opportunity to testify and ask questions of the opposing party, and was given an opportunity to present evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate took the matter under advisement and ultimately issued four separate five-year civil stalking protection orders in favor of the Petitioners. Mr. Schell then filed objections to each of the magistrate's decisions. Due to the duplicative nature of Mr. Schell's objections, Petitioners filed a motion to consolidate the cases, which the trial court granted. The trial court ultimately denied Mr. Schell's objections to the magistrate's decisions and adopted the magistrate's decisions.

         {¶4} Mr. Schell filed this timely appeal and presents three assignments of error for our review. To facilitate our analysis, we elect to address Mr. Schell's assignments of error together.

          II.

         Assignment of Error I

         There was insufficient evidence to support the magistrate's decision and/or the magistrate's decision in these matters were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

         Assignment of Error II

         The magistrate improperly heard these cases at once to the ...


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.