-dv e d meritorious pro se application for reconsideration within 10-days of the november 29,2012...
TRANSCRIPT
It
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Case No:2012-1425
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: KATHARINA SETZER On Appeal From TheLake County Court of
Appeals, EleventhAppellate District
Court of AppealsCase No: 2012-L-005
R, `
STATE OF OHIO ))SS. PROOF OF SERVICE
COUNTY OF LAKE)
On 2012, The undersigned served a copy of this Appellants' Pro Se
Application For Reconsideration; and Proof of Service. Upon Defendant-Appellee Ohio Attorney at Law-
Robert S. Leach at 29338 Euclid Ave., Wickliffe, Ohio 44092. By placing a copy of said documents in a
sealed envelope, properly addressed with First Class US Postage being fully prepaid and depositing it in
the US Mail.
I declare that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief.
Date^ Respectfully Submitted,
APPE LANT IN PRO P^R) ^CC: File IRM IEGLER, Apt AM
5980 k/IARINE PARKWAYMENTOR ON THE LAKE, OHIO 44060
-Dv E DDEC D 5 2012
CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO
DEC Q ^ ^^^Z
GLLs^^ ^^ GUURTSUgREKE C®UH'l OF OHIO
STATE OF OHIO
Office of the ClerkOhio Supreme Court8th Floor65 South Front StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215-3431
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: KATHARINA SETZER
Ohio Supreme Court No: 2012-1425
Dear Clerk for the Ohio Supreme Court,
Date: ^^ - 3 --/.y--^
Please find enclosed One Original and One Copy of the following:
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
that Appellants respectfully requests to be filed on their behalf, and scheduled for en banc hearing at a
date/time set forth by this Honorable Ohio Supreme Court.
(NOTE: Appellants(s) pro se pleadings cannot be held same standards as those drafted by
attorney as held/ruled by the "Supreme Law of the Land"- The United States Supreme Court in Hughes
v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980); Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines V Kerner, 404 US 519, 521(1972)); and accept Appellant's
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
Respectfully Submitted,
APPELLANT IN PRO RROBERT SETZER10625 CLAY STREETMONTVILLE, OHIO 44064
AP LLANT IN PRO PIRM ZI GLER, Apt A5980 MARINE PARKWAYMENTOR ON THE LAKE, OHIO 44060
'T4E pu-VXEIYTP TOltxf Df C041-iTRLEDtq^^V ^ 8 20112
M_ERK OF COURTSUPREME CaURT OF OHIO
In the Matter of Katharina Setzer Case No. 2012-1425
ENTRY
Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the courtdeclines jurisdiction to hear the case and dismisses the appeal as not involving anysubstantial constitutional question.
(Lake County Court of Appeals; No. 2012-L-005)
i
-IL,Maureen O'ConnorChief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Case No:2012-1425
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: KATHARINA SETZER On Appeal From TheLake County Court of
Appeals, EleventhAppellate District
Court of AppealsCase No: 2012-L-005
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
NOW COMES, Irm Ziegler and Robert Setzer, Plaintiff-Appellants presently filing in Pro
Per, Who hereby moves this Honorable Ohio Supreme Court, pursuant to Ohio Supreme Court
Rule 26 et seq and any/all other applicable Ohio Appellate Court Rules, by timely filing a
meritorious Pro Se Application For Reconsideration within 10-Days of the November 29,2012
"Entry(Order)", based upon any/all of the following:
(1) That Appellants now seek Reconsideration of this Honorable Ohio Supreme Court's
Entry "declining Jurisdiction to hear the case, and dismissing appeal as not involving any
substantial constitutional question"(end quote).
(2) That Appellants claims/states that there exists Federal Constitutional Questions Law
that remain unresolved/undecided by the Ohio Supreme Court's Entry, and should be
reconsidered/decided before Appellants present the Federal Question of Law in the U.S. District
Court as to whether Appellants clearly established Federal Constitutional Rights under Equal
Protection Due Process Access to the Courts, Procedural Due Process of Law, and to seek
Redress against the Government were violated by being denied Right to Appeal a adverse
judgment of manifest literal fraud upon the State Courts by Appellees.
HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF CASE/APPEAL
(3) This case originated at the Lake County Court of Common Pleas Probate
Division/Court before the Honorable Ted Klammer.
(4) In 2006, Appellants Mother- Katherina Setzer(now deceased) was diagnosed with
dementia possibly alzheimers and various family members sought Guardianship of Appellants
Mother- Katherina Setzer.
(5) On November 17,2006, Guardianship was Ordered by Judge Ted Kiammer to the
Appellant's Aunt- irmgard Heckelman(and unlawfully WAIVED the required Guardianship Bond
required under Ohio Probate Court Rule and ORC that was actually created to protect
incompetent persons from fraud/embezzlement), but Appellant's Mother would actually live
with Appellants' Sister and her Husband- Patricia and Robert Muller(Caregivers).
(6) In November 2011. Appellee, Ohio Attorney Robert S. Leach that represented the
Estate/Guardship of Katherina Setzer sent the Appellants' a "NOTICE OF HEARING ON
ACCOUNT" to close the Estate/Guardianship on/about December 9,2011, and Discovery was
requested by Appellant Ziegler and was denied by the Honorable Judge Ted Kiammer on
December 12,2011. See Exhibits A-D
(7) On December 9,2011, After Appellants reviewed both the Lake County Probate Court
File on Plaintiff-Appellants' Mother's Estate/Guardianship, and lake County Property Records
from 2005-2011. That the Appellants literally found by documented evidence that the Lake
County Probate Court was both intentionally mislead and that a manifest fraud was committed
upon the Lake County Probate Court by the Court-Ordered Guardian and Patricia and Robert
Muller to warrant reopening the Probate Court Case/File and conduct a Hearing on the claims
by Appellants.
FRAUD AND MISLEADING THE COURT
(8) That according to Lake County Public Records that on April 15, 2005 Appellants
Mother signed a "Warranty Deed" over to our sister(ie, Patricia Muller and her husband- Robert
Muller) for property parcels #08-A-026-0-008-0 and #10-A026-0-002-0 valued/sold at the sum
of $399,000(Three Hundred Thousand Dollars). See Exhibit E.
(9) That according to Lake County Public Records that on July 31,2006, Appellants
sister(ie, Patricia Muller and her husband- Robert Muller) signed a "Quit Claim Deed"
transferring said property parcels #08-A-026-0-008-0 and #10-A026-0-002-0 valued at the sum
of $399,000(Three Hundred Thousand Dollars) over to Little Mountain Home of Concord Farms
LLC for 100 000 leaving a balance of 299 000 of my Mother's property/assets unaccounted
for. See Exhibit F.
(10) That according to the Lake County Probate Court File/Records that it was revealed
by a unknown evaluator that our mother suffered from dementia or Alzheimer disease, and
was on numerous prescribed medications.
(11) That on November 17,2011, That the Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge
Ted Klammer issued a "Judgment Entry of Appointment of Guardian of Incompetent Person"
after Appellants Aunt(ie, Irmgard Heckelman) signed a "Guardian Fiduciary's Acceptance" to
honestly agree to account for Appellants Mother's financial accounts/assets.
k
(12) That upon simple review of the Honorable Lake County Probate Court File/Record
that "RED FLAGS" should have appeared to the Honorable Court Judge Klammer, and that the
Court was intentionally fraudulently mislead. Since the only "Guardian's Account" listing of
Appellants Mother's expenses was on/about 2006-2009. Appellants now shows/proves how
Appellants Mother's account/assets are not at accounted for, and how the Honorable Lake
County Probate Court was mislead and a fraud was committed by Appellees.
(13) That there is NO Guardian' Account of Appellants Mother's Assets of the initial
balance of Appellants Mother's(The Estate) of financial assets, accounts, and property from
April 2005 until November 17,2006 when Appellants Aunt(ie, lrmgard Heckelman) was legally
given Guardianship over Appellants Mother's Estate/Care. What happened to the $ 399,000
from the sale of Appellants Mother's Property?????
(14) Appellants states/claims that upon simple review of the Lake co Probate Court File
entitled "Guardian's Account" dated January 24,2008 and May 26,2008. Appellants Mother got
a monthly SSI Check for $970.00+ and that was reported Court by the Guardian. That Appellants
Mother was living with Appellants sister and her husband(ie, Patricia and Robert Muller), and
that they were actually charging Appellants Mother for rent at times TWICE a month by
Appellants sister and husband; phone, food, clothes, and even used Appellants Mother's own
assets/money to pay for three insurance policies.(NOTE: The payment of rent, phone, food,
and clothes is NOT consistent every month,ect). See Exhibits G-1.
(15) Appellants states/claims that the Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted
Klammer should have been fully advised and not fraudulently mislead. That said Court
Appointed Guardian was using Appellants Mother's assets to pay for three insurance policies. It
A
is also unclear by the Court File/Record who the beneficiary was on said insurance policies, and
what/who Appellants Mother's Last Will designated as the beneficiary?
(16) Appellants states/claims that the Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted Kiammer
should also have been fully advised and not fraudulently mislead by the fact. That Appellants
Mother transferred property/assets to our sister and her husband(ie, Patricia and Robert
Muller) at time this Probate Litigation was initially filed on November 17,2006.
(17) Appellants states/claims that the Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted
Klammer should also have been fully advised and not fraudulently mislead by the fact. That it
was admitted in Lake County Probate Court Magistrate's Decision dated June 8,2008 that the
Guardian "threw away" bank records. Therefore, The Lake County Probate Court could not
have adequately accounted for our Mother's Assets. See Exhibit J.
(19) Appellants states/claims that the Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted
Klammer should also have been fully advised and not fraudulently mislead by the fact. That
Appellants Mother NEVER lived with my Aunt and Appellants Mother's sister(ie,
IrmgardHeckelman) as falsely alleged by Appellants Aunt in this Lake Co Probate Court's
Magistrate's Decision dated December 1,2008.
(20) Appellants states/claims that the Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted
Klammer should also have been fully advised and not fraudulently mislead by the fact. That
Appellants Aunt(ie, IrmgardHeckelman) actually sent a letter to the lake Co Probate Court on
June 8,2009 alleging that Appellants sister was "not working", and that Appellants sister should
be paid for the care/housing of Appellants Mother. Why would Appellants Aunt/Sister need
money for the care/housing of Appellants Mother. When THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS are
S
unaccounted for from Appellants Mother's Property/Assets, and the remaining balance of
Appellants Mother's monthly Social Security Checks are unaccounted for?
(NOTE: It should also be noted that a Polebarn was on the herein Appellants Mother'sProperty/Parcels, and that the adverse parties never disclosed how much the polebarn was soldfor and too who).
DENIED DISCOVERY MOTION
(21) Appellant Irm Ziegler states/claims that she timely filed a "Motion To Compel
Discovery" that was filed 5-Days before the December 9,2011 deadline for which this Appellant
was sent a "Notice of Account" to appear. In which, Appellants requested Appellees to disclose
a copy of the Estate's Last will/Testament, Transfers of Property/Assets, Bank Account
records,etc. That was denied by the Honorable Ted Kiammer on December 12,2011.
(22) The Honorable Lake County Probate Court Judge Ted Klammer alleged that said
documents were "not relevant" to the Probate Court Proceeding. Appellant objects/claims that
the Honorable Court Judge Kiammer should have issued an ORDER To Compel Discovery. Since
said requested documents would have shown/proven to the Honorable Lake County Probate
Court of a existing fraud and misleading of the Court by the parties involved as proved by the
Appellants herein. See Exhibit D.
(23) That Appellants claims/states that the Eleventh District Court of Appeals and Lake
County Probate Court did abuse their discretion, create manifest injustice, erred, acted
arbitrary/capricious, was bias, was not impartial, and blatantly violated Appellants of their
clearly established under Equal Protection procedural Due Process Access to the Courts,
protected under both the Ohio/U.S. Constitutions as well as Ohio/Federal Court Case Law by
denying Appellants Rule 60(B) Motion For Relief From Judgment and not addressing the claims
in Motion/Brief/Affidavits/Exhibits.
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF LAW
WHERE THE APPELLANTS DENIED OF THEIR CLEARLY ESTABLISHED EQUAL PROTECTIONPROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, PROTECTED UNDER BOTH THEOHIO/U.S. CONSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OHIO/FEDERAL COURT CASE LAW BY DENYING PRO SEAPPELLANTS RULE 60(B) MOTION AND NOT ADDRESSING/RESOLVING CLAIMS IN APPELLANTSMOTION/BRIEF/AFFIDAVITS/EXHIBITS OF ACTUAL/LITERAL FRAUD OF ESTATES' ASSETS,MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS, AND COURTS BEING MISLEAD BY APPELLEE.
Appellants states/claims that the Ohio Appellate Courts have long held that a moving
party has the burden to show that a lower court was mislead and that a fraud was committed
upon the lower court, and that there are not many cases on Ohio Civil Court Rule 60(B) et seq.
RULE 60. Relief From Judgment or Order
(B) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud; etc. Onmotion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legalrepresentative from a finaljudgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which bydue diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B);(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or othermisconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, ora prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is nolonger equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any otherreason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time,and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceedingwas entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of ajudgment or suspend its operation.The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed inthese rules.
In ANTONOPOLOUS V EISNER. 30 Ohio App 2d 189(1972), The Court of Appeals held that
"Rule 60(B) is a residuary provision meant to permit relief in the interest of Justice", id 187, and
it "should be decided on the merits". id 199(Reversed and Remanded).
The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled in MATSON V MARKS, 32 Ohio App 2d 319(1972), that-
"Where a Motion For Relief From Judgment sets forth facts sufficient to constitute grounds for
relief from such a judgment and is timely filed, a court abused its discretion in overruling such
motions in the absence of a factual determination of the alleged grounds for relief from
judgment adverse to the movant". Id 320.
Further, In the Matson Supra at Id 326, The Ohio Court of Appeals held, that in, "Some
instances evidence may be adequately presented in forms of affidavits and in other instances
due to nature of grounds for relief, oral testimony may be required"(Reversed and Remanded).
It is clearly established, that, "In order to obtain relief under Civil Rule 60(B) the movant
must file a motion as provided for in Civil Rule 7(B). He must also file a brief or memorandum of
fact and law, and affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, exhibits and other relevant
material". See ADOMEIT V BALTIMORE, 39 Ohio App 2d 97(1974).
Appellants states/claims that they have met the burden to be granted relief in their Pro
Se Motion For Relief From Judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B), and that they have
shown/proven that the Lake County Probate Court and Ohio Appellate Court have been
intentionally mislead by fraud by the herein named parties as set forth and required in Brenner
V Shore, 34 Ohio App 2d 209, 212(1973); Adomeit V Baltimore, 39 Ohio App 2d 97, 101(1974).
That Appellants states as their claim upon which relief should be granted on appeal is
that the Honorable Judge Ted Kiammer of the Lake County Probate Court and/or the Ohio 11th
District Court of Appeal did abuse their discretion, create manifest justice, erred, acted
arbitrary/capricious, was not impartial, was bias, and blatantly violated the Appellants of their
clearly established Equal Protection procedural Due Process Access to the Courts, protected
under both the Ohio/US Constitutions as well as Ohio/Federal Court Case Law. Since Honorable
Judge Ted Kiammer and Ohio Court of Appeals never addressed the claims/issues that:
(A) Judge Klammer's Probate Court was intentionally mislead;
(B) Judge Klammer's Probate Court had a actual fraud committed by parties named as
Guardian(s) of Estate;
(C) Judge Klammer never addressed/resolved the claim/issue that the Guardian(s) actually
used the Estate Assets to pay for THREE Life Insurance Policies and the beneficiaries are
not known nor was any Will of Estate ever produced/presented at Final Account
Hearing;
(D) And the 11th District Court of Appeal ruling that Appellants had no right to appeal
because they were not guardians of the Estate.
In conclusion, Appellants(s) pro se pleadings cannot be held same standards as those
drafted by attorney as held/ruled by the "Supreme Law of the Land"- The United States
Supreme Court in Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163
(1980); Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) ( per curiam); Haines V Kerner, 404 US
519, 521(1972)); and accept Appellant's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or
wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
SUMMARY AND RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Appellants request/pray that this Honorable Ohio Supreme Court
honors/grants these Appellants timely filed Pro Se Application For Reconsideration of Entry
issued on November 28,2012 before imminent Federal Court Judicial Review of blatant
violations of Appellants Federal Constitutional Rights. By issuing an Order Granting Appellants
Motion For Reconsideration. Since this case involves matters of public and great general
interest and a substantial constitutional question. The appellant requests that this court accept
jurisdiction in this case so that the important issues presented will be reviewed on the merits.
Date:/,>-)- -= / ^-
'--
PPELLANT IN PROROBERT SETZER10625 CLAY STREETMONTVILLE, OHIO 44064
Respe fully Submitted,
APP LANT IN PRO P^IRM ZIEGLER(Setzer), Apt A1165980 MARINE PARKWAYMENTOR ON THE LAKE, OHIO 44060
Certificate of service
I certify that a copy of this Appellants' Pro Se Application For Reconsideration; and Proof
of Service was sent by ordinary U.S. mail to counsel for Appellee, Ohio Attorney-Robert S. Leach
at 29338 Euclid Ave., Wickliffe, Ohio 44092, on the date of December 3,2012.
Date^^ -3 L--/2-._
CC: File
Respectfully Submitted,
2-14^APP LLANT IN PRO PIRM ^EGLER, Apt A 65980 MARINE PARKWAYMENTOR ON THE LAKE, OHIO 44060
ln^ ^ . .. . .. . .. ^
1 .
PROBATE COURT OF LAKE COUNTY, OHIOTED KLANIlVER , Judge
ESTATE OF KATHARINA SETZER
CASE NO. 06 GU 0178
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ACCOUNT
To the following persons:
Irmgar-d Heckelman
Name
Patricia Muller
Name
Robert Setzer`
Name
13393 Carter Rd., Le.roy, OH 44077
Address
7760 MorleyRd., Mentor, OH 44060
Address
10625 Clay St., Montville, OH 44064
Address
Irmga^d Victor 5980 Marine Pkwy H107, Mentor-on-the-Lake OH 44060
An Account covering the period from APRIL 2^; 2009 TO AUGUST 10, 2011 inthe above-captioned case has been filed in this Court.
Hearing on the Account will be held DECEMBER 9, 2011k 8:00 A.M. in thisCourt.
The Court is located at 25 N. Park Place, Painesville, Ohio.
You may examine and inquire into the contents of the Account. Any exceptions tothe account must be filed in writing at least five days prior to the date set for the hearing.Absent the f lirg of written exception, the account may be approved without fiLrthernnti eP
Prepare byAttorney's Narne Robert S. Leach, Esq.Address 29338 Euclid Ave, Wickliffe
Ohio 44092
Phone No. 440-943-6800
1
Fiduciary or Attorney for Estate
LCPC 13.3- Notice of Hearing on Account
^X^1 bl ' f ' A
` ; . ;: O
T. _ .
S. L'E'ACH, ESQ.339 Euclid Avenue ♦ W(440) 943-6800 ♦ Fax:
November 30, 2011
Irm Ziegler5980 Marine ParkwayApt. No. A116Mentor-on-the-Lake, Ohio 44060
Re:
585-4057
In the Matter ofthe Guardianship of Katharina Setzer - Case No. 06 GU 0178
Dear Mr. Ziegler:
I am in receipt of your letter, dated November 14, 2011. Please be advised that yau may review thecontents of the court file and records at the Lake County Probate Court, located at the Lake CountyCourt House, West Amiex, 25 North Park Place, Painesville, Ohio 44077.
Please call if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Please advise me in advanceas to whether you are contesting the accounting and/or whether you will be attending the Hearing onthe Account before the Court on December 9, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. I will diary this matter for Monday,December-5, 2011. Please contact me by then.
Very truly yours,
:ohel•t S. Leach,Attorney at Law
RSL/je
i Exti^S^t p
3m
ROBERT S. LEACH. ESO.
December 2, 2011
Irm Ziegler5980 Marine ParkwayApt. No. A116Mentor-on-the-Lake, Ohio 44060
339 Euclid Avenue ♦ Wickliffe, Ohio 446(440) 943-6800 ♦ Fax: (440) 585-4057
Re: In the Matter of the Guardianship of KathaNina Setzer - Case No. 06 GU 0178
Dear Ms. Ziegler:
Subsequent to my letter to you, dated November 30, 2011, I received your Motion to CompelDiscovery.filed with the Probate Court. Again, I remind you that you may review the contents of thecourt file and records at the Lake County Probate Court, located at the Lake County Court House,West Annex, 25 North Park Place, Painesville, Ohio 44077.
I have been attempting to contact you, but I do not have your current telephone number. Pleasecontact my office as soon as possible to discuss this matter and please leave all contact numbers inthe event I am not in the office when you call.
Very truly yours,
Robert S. Leach,Attorney at Law
RSL/je
j fxtiibit ^
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASDIVISION OF PROBATE L E ,LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: j CASE NO. o6 IZP 2=38
THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ) JUDGE TED iVIE ^^^KATHERINA SETZER ) ^" ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^
) JUDGMENT E^^IV'TRY^^ ^ ^^^^ ^)
This matter came before the Court on the Motion to Compel Discovery filed
by Irmgard Ziegler, pro se. Ms. Ziegler moved under Civ.R. 37(A) to compel
discovery. This is not the proper procedure.
Ms. Ziegler requests a list of documents, many of which are unrelated to the
within guardianship. Other documents may be had by reviewing the guardianship
file. The Court file indicates that the ward's next of kin, including Ms. Ziegler, were
not involved with the ward while she was living.
The Court suggests Ms. Ziegler hire an attorney if she is unable to file a proper
motion with the Court.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
the Court hereby denies the Motion to Compel Discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc Robert S. Leach, Esq.Irmgard Ziegler
()5j J DGE T D kk'AmMER
I, Exh^b^t D
: • ^,.^• ^_ ^
-' o0^- •_1
• ->
WARRANTY DEED
Know all Men by these Presents, That Katharina E. Setzer, widowed and not remarried the
Grantor(s), for the consideration of Ten and Other Consideration Dollars ($10.00 etc.) received
to my full satisfaction of Little Mountain Homes of Concord Farms, LLC, the Grantee whose
TAX MAILING ADDRESS will be 1447 North Ridge Road, Painesville, OH 44077 do give,
grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following
described premises:
SEE EXHIBIT "A"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF.
Permanent Parcel Nos. 08-A=026-0-00-008-0 and10-A-026-0-00-002-0
TO IIAVE ANI> TO IIOGD the above granted and bargained premises, with the
appurtenances thereof, unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And Katharina:.::, •
E. Setzer, the said Gra=o :.-,r(s), do for her.self and her heirs, executors and administrators, covenant
with the said Grantee, ,t.s successors and assigns, that at and until the ensealing of these presents, I
am well seized of the ab•: -ve described!`premises, as a good and indefeasible estate in FEE
SIMPLE, and have good right to bargain and sell the same in manner and form as above written,
and that the same are free from all encumbrances whatsoever except taxes and assessments, both
general and special, for the current half of the taxable year and thereafter; zoning ordinances,
conditions and restrictions of record, easements and'rights-of-way, if any and that I will
WARRANTY AND DEFEND said premises, with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, to the
said Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all lawful claims and demands whatsoever except
as hereinbefore provided.
This Conveyance has been examinedand the Grantor has co:rcr,{iad withSectio 319,202 of th %+rs s;;^i Code.^t3R^ FE E
xgE xE"nr,Q,-
Edward H. Zuparoc6c, CDUnlv Auditar
TRANS ^^RREDAPR 1 5 2005
I Exti , ti ^t E
xi UlC*, `- C} Ss-`
K ^ .^:^'':;r. C-c+r, u-, cf
^,^•
4-1 G Cz".G. c. ^
^r T as. ^,. .^.x [j
u'
4.y
1%%
c^92, r'b6i=?929 3^6?3
LAKE COUNTY OHIORECORDED ON
07-31-2006 1:03 Pt4
Qttit-Ctaim IIIeed - From a Cocpotation
Know all Men by these
LAKE OUMfYORECORDER
REC. FEE: `CRPAGES: 4
That Little Mountain Homes of Concord Farms, LLC, the Grantor, who claim title by or
r= ^
M
3
ru
O
^ ttt
•.-^.1
through instrument, recordec: in Document No. County Recorder's
Office, for divers good causes and considerations thereunto moving, and especially for the sum of
*fka• Patricia A. Rodick , ,}+nIVlulleAnd Robert C. Mullw-Wfe"and Husband', the Grantee(s), whose TAX MAILING
ADDRESS will be 7760 Morley Road, Concord, OH 44060 has given, granted, remised, released
and forever quit-claimed, and does by these presents absolutely give, grant, remise, release and
forever quit-claim unto the said Grantee(s), their heirs and assigns forever, all such right and title
Ten dollars and other valuable consideration ($10.00) received to its full satisfaction of Patricia A.
as it, the said Grantor, has or ought to have in and to the following described piece or parcel of
land,
SEE EXFII:BI'C "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF.
Out of Permar ent Parcel Nos. 08-A-026-0-00-008-0 and10-A-026-0-00-002-0
It is expressively understood the above describe4.parcel of landshall be attached and become part af a contiguous parcel#'s 08-A-026-{)-011-028=0 and 10-A-026-0-00•008-0
^Cc 0 ^
O (D
X CD
Qro N=r CD
y y
^O o a
rn CD._.. ^
Ct. N
o.
To have and to hold the premi ses aforesaid, with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, to the
said Grantee(s), their heirs ancl assigns, so that neither the said Grantor, nor its successors and
assigns, nor any other persons claiming title through or under it, shall or will hereafter claim or
demand any right or title to thi; premises, or any part thereof; but they and every one of them shall
by these presents be excluded and forever barred.
In Testimony Whereof said company set its hand and company seal, by Rick Colwell, its,a•
Managing Member, this a q day of ^ ^,.. 2004.
Little Mountain Homes of Cnnenrd Farn,v.. ELi"
xSAOM..r
Ono
-ar
lomn
^^^
TED KLAMMER, JUDGEPROBATE COURT OF LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF KATHARINA SETZER
CASE NO. 06GU0178 r--a
GUARDIAN'S ACCOUNTen[R.C. 2109.031
SECOND PARTIAL:^A^^OU1^iA-/22/(79FROM 12/24/07 10,10
5 c Fo^
(Balance from previous account)
ASSETS:US BANK XXXX- 8663DEPOSITSUS TREASURY REFUNDSOCIAL SECURITY ($1,015.60 X 12mo.)
($1,080.20 X 4mo.)
:.^
TOTAL:
DISBURSEMENTS:US BANK FEESAARP LIFE INSURANCEMONTHLY PHONE SERVICE-AT&THEALTH INSURANCE-UNITED AMERICANWARD' S CREDITORS
e^b PENN CREDIT/READER'S DIGEST^ PAT_MULLER (RENT)
BOB MULLER (RENT)FOOD AND GROCERIES-WALGREENSPRESCRIPTIONS AND MEDICATIONSBRIGHTWOOD ANIMALBIG CREEK VETLAKE COUNTY PROBATE COURTAARP MEMBERSHIP CARDSPAT MULLER- BIRTHDAY PRESENTCASH TO WARD, HEALTH & BEAUTY, HAIR SALON,GROCERIES, DAY TRIPS, MISC ANEOUS EXPENSES
TOTAL:
^ Exh&S,t6
$4,842.73
4,842.73427.57300.00
16,508.00 I,22,078.30
48.00""1,389.12 /
333.87";-4,286.20 1/
20.22 /2,40000 ^ k--
4010 :00^fl
^` '255.77 `'`
3,603.40 `l549.17 v72.00 v98.7129.50
100.00 ^
1,505.10
15,091.06
IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIPOF KATHARINA SETZER
( XG,Q9 1 3w ASSETS - DEPOSITS^-1Exhibit "A"
05/01/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,080.2005/07/2009 US Treasury - Earned Recovery Payment $ 250.0006/03/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,080.2007/02/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,080.2007/06/2009 Pat Muller (refund) $ 200.0008/03/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,080.2009/08/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,080.2009/09/2009 Returned Check - Altercare $ 60.0009/22/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 96.4010/05/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,177.2010/26/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 113.6011/25/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,205.6012/07/2009 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,205.6001/05/2010 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,204.5002/04/2010 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,204.5003/09/2010 US Treasury - Social Security $ 1,223.0004/13/2010 US Treasury - Social Security $ 65.0304/26/2010 Reversed Maintenance Fee $ 3.00
Total $13,409.43
Ending Balance as of May 1, 2010:
US Bank Checking (8663) closed on 08/02/2010- no activity from 04/26/2010 to 08/02/2010
Date of Death: April 12, 2010
ONG 4CC® ^,4N
$ 0.00
ai^ 4)il3
(Qo9 - SW })
04/27/200904/27/200904/27/200904/30/200905/08/200905/11/200905/15/200905/18/200905/22/200905/26/200905/26/200905/27/200906/02/200906/05/200906/09/200906/09/200906/15/200906/18/200906/22/200906/25/200907/07/200907/22/200907/08/200907/21/200907/27/200908/10/200908/13/200908/13/200908/24/200908/26/200909/02/200909/08/200909/08/200909/09/200909/09/200909/09/200909/23/200909/23/200910/08/200910/08/200910/23/200911/10/2009
IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIPOF KATHARINA SETZER
DISBURSEMENTS
Exhibit "B"
AARP Life InsurancePat Muller (Rent for May, 2009)Walgreen Co.Giant EagleUnited American Insurance PremiumAT&T ServicesWalgreen Co.Pat Muller (Rent for June, 2009)Check Returned in StatementGiant EagleAARP Life InsuranceWalgreen Co.Lake County Probate CourtWalgreen Co.United American Insurance PremiumGift to Dylan RodickPat Muller (Rent for July, 2009)Kohls Department StoreCheck Returned in StatementAARP Life InsuranceUnited American Insurance PremiumCheck Returned in StatementPaylessAltercare of MentorAARP Life InsuranceUnited American Insurance PremiumAltercare of MentorKohls Department StoreCheck Returned in StatementNew York LifeAltercare of MentorAltercare of MentorAltercare of MentorReturned Item Charge ($60.00 Altercare)Overdraft ChargeUnited American Insurance PremiumCheck Returned in StatementKohls Department StoreUnited American Insurance PremiumAltercare of MentorCheck Returned in StatementUnited American Insurance Premium
^ 1/^ S^rP^LK
$ 86.82$ 200.00 CRAf$ 45.64$ 68.29 -$ 279.95°^- L1^j^r^L^$ 44.45 '$ 33.89,'$ 200.00 ' <'$ 3.00 -$ 110.44 • A1`^ (AA(-'P'$ 86.82 °$ 162.31 '$ 63.00 -$ 14.00 .$ 279.95 `$ 20.00 -$ 200.00$ 405.96 °$ 3.00$ 86.82$ 279.95$ 3.00$ 32.91 -$ 6,180.09$ 86.82°$ 279.95$ 759.00$ 33.20$ 3.00$ 263.46$ 819.00-$ 759.00 -$ 60.00$ 19.00$ 19.00$ 279.95 '$ 3.00°$ 53.10$ 279.95 ^$ 806.00 °,$, -3.00$ 279.95
i EXti^^,r r
IN 7."HHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FILEDDMSION OF PROBATELAYaE COUNTY, OIHO 2011 JUN - 8 A ED 5 q
INR.E: ) CASENt?.o6GU.?l0k, ^^^ JKL AIIME RTHE GUARDIANSHIP OF } JUDGE TED KLAMIUIERg'^^^^^^^ i
KATIiARINA SETZER )MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
)
This matter came before the Court for a status hearing. The Court referred
this matter to Lora Lynne Stalnaker, as Magistrate, pursuant to Civ.R 63. Robert S.
Leach, Esq., counsel for the guardian, Irmgard Heckleman, was present for hearing.
The ward died on April 12, 2010, over a year ago. The account was due for
ffling by May 26, 2010; the Court issued an advance notice for the account in April
2010. The Court issued two past due notices before issuing a citation for failure to
file the account on July 23, 201o. Attorney Leach filed a letter with the Court stating
that the guardian is elderly and, at the time of the citation hearing, was hospitalized.^
e status hearing, attorney Leach stated that he believes e guardia
threw away the bank records en the ward died, believing she no longer needed
them. Attorney Leach further believes that when the guardian became ill, the family
provided the ward's remaining assets to the nursing home. He has subpoenaed the
bank for the records so that he may prepare a final account. Additionally, attorney
Leach has been recovering from his own iilness.
Attorney Leach requested a continuance of sixty to ninety days to file the final
account.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends a final extension to file
the final and distn`butive account until Friday. August 26. 2oya.. The undersigned
cnt6^^^^ 3
recommends that the Court grant -no •futther -extensions; this matter has been
pending for too long.
Within fourteen days of the filing of a magistrate's decision, a party may file
written objections to the magistrate's decision. A party must serve any such objection
upon all parties to this action. If any party timely files objections, any other party
may also file objections no later than ten days after the first objections are filed.
Objections shall be specific and state with particularity the grounds of
objection. Any objection to a finding of fact shall be supported by a transcript of all
the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit of that
evidence if a transcript is not available. A party shall not assign as error on appeal
the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law, whether or not
specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law, unless the party
timely and specifically files objection to finding or conclusion.
Resp ly sub itted,
ra LYnne StareaAker , Magistrate
cc Robert S. Leach, Esq.