Nob Hill E. Condominium Assn. v. Grundstein

[Cite as Nob Hill E. Condominium Assn. v. Grundstein, 2011-Ohio-2552.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95919
NOB HILL EAST CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ROBERT GRUNDSTEIN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Bedford Municipal Court
2
Case No. CVF-05558
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Sweeney, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 26, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Robert Grundstein, Pro Se
WSBA 20389
P.O. 342
Hyde Park, VT 05655
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Horn
178 E. Washington Street
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
3
{¶ 1} Although defendant-appellant Robert Grundstein was declared a
vexatious litigator,1 this court nevertheless permitted him to file an appeal
from the orders of the Bedford Municipal Court that denied his “motion”2 for
relief from a judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Nob Hill East
Condominium Association.3
{¶ 2} In granting Grundstein’s request to file this appeal, this court
placed certain conditions on him. Grundstein was ordered to “comply with
the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure as well as the local rules of this court *
* * .” Grundstein subsequently filed a docketing statement that indicated
the “appropriate designation for this case” was assignment to the accelerated
calendar.
{¶ 3} App.R. 11.1(A) states in pertinent part:
{¶ 4} “The accelerated calendar is designed to provide a means to
eliminate delay and unnecessary expense in effecting a just decision on
1See Grundstein v. Wolf’s Gallery, Inc., Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas No. CV-572848.
2 Grundstein actually filed more than one motion, entitling them as 1) a
“motion to vacate order”; 2) a “motion to set aside judgment”; and, finally, 3) a
“motion for relief from judgment.”
3 The association obtained judgment both on its complaint, which sought
payment of assessments on his unit, and on Grundstein’s numerous counterclaims.
4
appeal by the recognition that some cases do not require as extensive or time
consuming procedure as others.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 5} In spite of the foregoing, Grundstein has filed an appellate brief
that contains eleven assignments of error. His claims of such extensive error
completely frustrate the intention of the accelerated calendar. See App.R.
11.1(A)(2)(c). Grundstein has also filed a reply brief, in contravention of
Loc.App.R. 11.1(B)(4)(d).
{¶ 6} In addition, App.R. 11.1(C) directs that appellate briefs must
comply with the form specified by App.R. 16.
{¶ 7} App.R. 16(A)(4) requires a “statement of the issues presented for
review, with references to the assignments of error to which each issue
relates.” (Emphasis added.) App.R. 16(A)(5) requires the appellant to
present a “statement of the case * * * describing the nature of the case, the
course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.” App.R.
16(A)(6) requires a “statement of the facts relevant to the assignments of
error * * * , with appropriate references to the record in accordance with
division (D) of this rule.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 8} Finally, App.R. 16(A)(7) provides that the appellant’s brief shall
include “[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with
respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in
5
support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and
parts of the record on which appellant relies. * * * .” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 9} A review of Grundstein’s appellate brief demonstrates he
complied only minimally, when he did so at all, with App.R. 16(A)’s
requirements.
{¶ 10} The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1(E) and
Loc.App.R. 11.1. Thus, “in its discretion,” this court may issue a “judgment
entry-accelerated calendar” rather than a full opinion. Loc.App.R. 11.1(B)(5).
{¶ 11} Grundstein is reminded that “it is not the duty of an appellate
court to search the record for evidence to support an appellant’s argument as
to any alleged error.” Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, Cuyahoga App. No. 91412,
2009-Ohio-3456, ¶7, citing State v. McGuire (Apr. 15, 1996), Preble App. No.
CA95-01-001. “An appellate court is not a performing bear, required to
dance to each and every tune played on an appeal.” Rodriguez, citing State
v. Watson (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 316, 710 N.E.2d 340. See, also, Barry v.
Rolfe, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 88459, 88460, 88676, 88680-86, and 88908-11,
2008-Ohio-3131, ¶41-48.
{¶ 12} With the foregoing as background, Grundstein’s assignments of
error are addressed as follows.
6
{¶ 13} His first, ninth, tenth, and eleventh assignments of error, which
challenge the municipal court’s prerogative to reconsider its decision to
“conditionally” dismiss this case, are overruled on the authority of Schmidt v.
Bankers Title & Escrow Agency, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 88847,
2007-Ohio-3924. See, also, Hines v. Zofko (Mar. 22, 1994), Trumbull App.
No. 93-T-4928.
{¶ 14} Grundstein’s second, third, and eighth assignments of error,
which challenge the municipal court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, are
overruled on the authority of Lewallen v. Mentor Lagoons, Inc. (1993), 85
Ohio App.3d 91, 619 N.E.2d 98.
{¶ 15} Grundstein’s fourth and fifth assignments of error will not be
addressed because Grundstein failed to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7). App.R.
12(A)(2).
{¶ 16} Grundstein’s sixth and seventh assignments of error, which
challenge the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) “motion,” are overruled because he
failed to submit evidence in the municipal court to support these arguments.
McKean v. Howell, Stark App. No. 2002CA00293, 2003-Ohio-353, ¶16-19.
{¶ 17} Since none of Grundstein’s assignments of error has merit, the
municipal court’s orders are affirmed.
Affirmed.
7
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this
judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_______________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
8