cincinnati, f d 9. the case was placed on judge melba marsh's jury trial call for may 8, 2006...

IN THE OHIO STATE SUPREME COURT

YVONNE DUHART andESTATE OF PEARLIE DUHART7662 View Place Dr.Cincinnati, Ohio 45224

Case No. O Q _. 1427

Relator ORIGINAL ACTION INMANDAMUS

VS.

ROBERT NURRE, Visiting JudgeHAMILTON COUNTY COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS1000 Main Street, Rm. 555Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

And

GREGORY HARTMANNHAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS1000 Main StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202

And

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY2775 Sanders RoadNorthbrook, Illinois 60062-6127

And

GEORGE HILL1316 Joseph StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45237 F D

JUI. 11 20u8

CLERK OF COURI'' SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

1

And

ROBERT GUTZWILLERClodfelder and Gutzwiller1208 Bartlett BuildingThirty-Six East Fourth StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202

Respondents

COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Jake J. Duhart ( 0032458 ) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)Jake J. Duhart Attorney at Law7662 View Place DriveCincinnati, Ohio 45224(513) 761-5176

COUNSEL FOR RF,LATORS, PEARLIE AND YVONNE DUHART

Nancy H. RogersAttorney General, State of Ohio30 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 466-4320

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS, JUDGE ROBERT NURRE

Timothy HeatherBENJAMIN, YOCUM AND HEATHER, LLC300 Pike Street, Ste 500Cincinnati, Ohio 45202(513) 946-3500

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ANDGEORGE HILL

JOSEPH DETERSHamilton County Prosecutor1000 Main Street

2

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202(513) 721-5672

COUNSEL FOR HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS GREGORYHARTMANN

Relators, Yvonne Duhart and the Estate of Pearlie Duhart, as their Complaint for a

Write of Mandamus herein, states as follows:

COUNT ONE

1. On January 12, 2002 Relators, Yvonne Duhart, age 42, and her mother Pearlie

Duhart, age 78, were involved in a rear end collision with an automobile driven by

Respondent, George Hill.

2. Attorney Robert Gutzwiller represented the Plaintiff-Relators in pretrial matters

before Judge Melba Marsh and in the trial with Visiting Judge Robert Niure presiding.

3. George Hill, the driver of the car that collided with the Relators' automobile

eluded contact with plaintiff's lawyer for nearly two years while claiming not to be

insured.

4. Relator, Yvonne Duhart, filed for damages through her uninsured motorist

coverage from her insurance company, Allstate Insurance.

5. Relators' attorney filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common

Pleas on September 23, 2003, followed by a motion for default judgment.

6. Defense attorney, Timothy Heather, put in an appearance for George Hill

claiming that Allstate also insured Hill at the time of the accident.

7. There was no offer of settlement nor did the trial judge ever refer the case to

mandatory arbitration.

3

8. Plaintiff-Relator, Pearlie Duhart, died on April 26, 2005 at age 81.

9. The case was placed on Judge Melba Marsh's jury trial call for May 8, 2006

and assigned to Visiting Judge Robert Nurre for trial on May 9, 2006.

10. The defense counsel conceded that defendant was at fault.

11, Plaintiff Yvonne Duhart presented medical bills totaling in excess of $8,000.00,

followed by expert testimony indicating that they resulted from an injury that was

directly caused by the automobile accident in question.

12. Plaintiff, Pearlie Duhart suffered from a number of health problems including,

diabetes, kidney failure, blindness, heart disease, multiple strokes and a bleeding brain

stem.

13. T'he Visiting Trial Judge Nurre excluded all of plaintiff, Pearlie Duhart's,

medical records from both before and after the accident, limiting her damages to a"brunp

on the head" in his jury instructions.

14. After a two-day jury trial and judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $6,000.00, an

amount less than plaintiff s actual medical expenses, it was mutually agreed that attorney

Gutzwiller was dismissed from further representation and new counsel, Jake Duhart, filed

notice of substitution of counsel.

15. Relators filed a motion for new trial based on the inadequacy of the judgment

and on the numerous procedural errors and deficiencies recited in the body of the motion.

( Exhibit 1 )

16. Following a denial of the motion, Relators filed a notice of appeal on August

30, 2006 and an amended Docketing Statement on September 18, 2006.

4

17. Among the allegations made in the court of appeals action were assertions of

misconduct and possible collusion on the part of plaintiffs trial attorney, Assertions of

errors in basic trial procedure and inordinate delay in delivery of the transcript as well as

inaccuracies in the transcripts.

18. The First District Court of Appeals denied plaintiff s appeal on February 16,

2008.

19. Defense Counsel forwarded a document dated April 18, 2008, to plaintiff's

attorney titled "Order of Satisfaction of Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice" along

with copies of checks to be written in the name of plaintiffs and trial attorney Robert

Gutzwiller. (Exhibits 4-6 )

20. Defense counsel's document goes far beyond the satisfaction to which payment

of the jury judgment would entitle him, such as that entered following the Oliver v.

Roedersheimer cited in Relater's trial court motion for a new trial (Exhibit I and 2), or

Vale v. State Farm Mutual, another case in which Mr. Heather's firm had an interest

(Exhibit 3), instead it seeks a dismissal of all rights associated with the cause with

prejudice, as would usually be obtained as a result of a negotiated settlement.

21. Relators' counsel refused to sign the document due to the fact that it was over-

broad in nature after which, Defense attorney Heather filed a rnotion with Visiting Judge

Nurre requesting an order to pay the judgment into an account with the Clerk of Courts

for the Hamilton County, and dismiss all matters relating to the case with prejudice.

22. No judgment funds were ever tendered to plaintiffs or their attorney.

23. Relators anticipate further possible litigation on her Allstate insurance contract.

5

24. Visiting Judge Nurre's signing the order requested by defense counsel Heather

on August 7, 2008 exceeded his authority as a visiting judge and was a violation of the

Plaintiffs-Relators' fifth amendment right to due process under the U.S. Constitution.

WHEREFORE, the Relators seek a Writ of Mandamus ordering Respondents to

rescind any orders relating to the judgment rendered in the Duhart v. Hull trial, refund

any money deposited with the Clerk of Courts, if any, in relation to that judgment, tender

said funds to the plaintiffs in their names and award attorney's fees in accordance with

R.C. 149.43(C), and for any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

7662 View Place DriveCincinnati, Ohio 45224(513) 761-5172

J. Du (0032458)ounsel f r Relators

PRAECIPE FOR SERVICE

TO THE CLERK:

Please issue a summons along with a copy of this Complaint to the Respondentsreturn receipt requestedCertified Maile one via U Stified in the ca tion on aid .,. .p p gen

^ - /4, ,, &(003 458)

6

COURT OF COMMON PLEASHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

YVONNE DUFIART, et al., Case No. A0307154

Plaintiffs Judge Marsh

a,

V.

GEORGE HILL,

Defendant

Civil Rule 59(A).

Support for this motion is found in the following memorandum.

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Now comes, Yvonne Duhart and the Estate of Pearlie Duhart, plaintiffs in the above

captioned cause, by and through their attorney, Jake J. Duhart, and move this court for an

order vacating the jury verdict in the above matter and granting a new trial pursuant to

spectfully submitted,

e J. buhart (032458)Attorney for Plaintiff7662 View Pi. Dr.Cincinnati, Ohio 45224(513) 761-5172

t Ex-18,

S.

MEMORANDUM

a,

The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a new

trial may be granted by the trial court under Ohio Civ.R. 59(A)(Exhibit 3). Plaintiff

asserts that the trial folder is missing the defendant's expert's deposition transcripts, the

jury instructions and question proffered by the jury to the court during deliberations. The

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Clerks office indicates that it does not have

possession of the material. Plaintiff is making this motion without benefit of a trial

transcript. Civ R. 59(A) ( 1), ((4), (8) (9)

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

1. Counsel stated that he "likes" Heather during Voir Dire thus validating hisbehavior and misstatements of the facts during the trial.

2. Heather falsely states that his video deposition of Dr. Bender is hours longwhile plaintiff's deposition of the expert is minutes long, the exactopposite of the truth.

3. Heather claims that there were negotiations during the four years that thecase had been in existence and that plaintiff wants "a whole lot of money"

4. Defense counsel's Expert claimed to be compensated slightly over$600.00 for his deposition but counsel failed to explore the totatcompensation for his services, which amounts to $93,000.00 peryear.(Exhibit No. 2)

5. Heather cross-examined Plaintiff, Yvonne Duhart, and witness BarbaraDuhart on numerous issues that required redirect questioning, such asYvonne's before and after abilities, and her health club membership.

6. Plaintiff's counsel withdrew his motion for default judgment that clearlywas appropriate, which was followed by defense counsel's motion todismiss the cause.

a,II. Jury venir

1. The judge did no questioning on voir dire

2. Juror who claimed that he did not believe in awarding pain and sufferingdamages was allowed to remain on the jury over objections..

2

0

a.

3. Insurance Defense attorney, Douglas May, who knew Heather and hadworked with him was allowed to remain on the panel as alternate juror andapparently be present in the jury room during deliberations.

4. Two jurors appeared to be asleep during trial. Apparently, neither defensecounsel nor the judge addressed this issue.( No. 8 Kurt Zobrist, and No. 3.Charles Cullen)

III. Evidence

1. Plaintiff ordered to read police officer's hearsay statements from theaccident report (He had checked off no injuries on the accident form) overplaintiff's objections. The officer was not called to testify and even if hehad, he could not have read from his report.

IV Jury Instructions

1. Jury instructions are missing from the official court file, and the computerrecords.

2. The jury instructions lacked clarity and apparently were not clearlynumbered, as such, were confusing to the jury. This was apparent from thequestion sent back from the foreman of the jury asking whether they couldsubtract for co-payments in determining damages.

3. The jury charge left out instructions on aggravation and acceleration overthe objections of counsel for plaintiff. The testimony of Defendant's ownexpert claimed that plaintiffhad a pre-existing arthiitic condition in herspine. Plaintiff was entitled to an instruction regarding the traumaticaggravation and acceleration of said condition.

4. The instructions covering nominal damages was prejudicial andinappropriate based upon the testimony of both experts.

S. The judges' limiting the jury's consideration of damages for PearlieDuhart to $700.00 dollars plus pain and suffering for a "bump on theHead" was neither appropriate nor supported by the evidence.

6. The judge's discussion of having to extend the amount of time the jurywould be in deliberation if several members have "conflicts" added to thepressure on the jurors to make a quick decision to avoid additional days indeliberation. Such conversations should have taken place out of hearing ofthe remaining jurors.

a,IV. Jury Verdict Form

1. The jury verdict form had space for only one amount of damages (Exhibit3), when it should have been divided to cover each type of damages, in

3

addition, request of the plaintiff's counsel to question the jury as to whetherthey had intended to give damages for pain and suffering was denied. In orderfor judge Nurre to be consistent, he should have provided the jury withinstructions and verdict form simitar to the case of Oliver v. Roedersheimer,Ao410146, over which he presided the following week( Exhibit 4)

Fr these reasons plaintiffs pray that this court will grant them a new trial.

Respectfully submitted,a,

e J. Duhart (03245800)Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby, certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document has beenserved on Timothy Heather, attorney for defendant, at 312 Elm Street, Suite 1850,Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, by ordinary mail this -* day of May, 2006.

4

RULE 59. New Trials

(A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or

part of the issues upon any of the following grounds:

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, magistrate, or prevailing party,or any order of the court or magistrate, or abuse of discretion, by which an aggrieved party wasprevented from having a fair trial;

(2) Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party;

(3) Accident or surprise tvhich ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;

(4) Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under theinfluence of passion or prejudice;

(5) Error in the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action isupon a contract or for the injury or detention of property;

(6) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence; however, only onenew trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the same case;

(7) The judgment is contrary to law:

(8) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party applying, which withreasonable diligence he could not have discovered and produced at trial;

(9) Error of law occurring at the trial and brought to the attention of the trial court by

the party making the application.

In addition to the above grounds, a new trial may also be granted in the sound discretionof the court for good cause shown.

When a new trial is granted, the court shall specify in writing the grounds upon whichsuch new trial is granted.

On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open thejudgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact andconclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and enter a new judgment.

(B) Time for motion. A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than fourteendays after the entry of the judgment.

q1

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

14

15

16

17

78

19

20

21

22

23

24

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

RANDALL OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ASHLEY ROEDERSHEIMER,

Defendant.

. CASE NO. A-0410146

ORiGINALHAAM^tON COUNTY^CIERK OF COURTS

^.--^

BOUND DOCUMIENTCAyNpT BE SCANNED

The deposition of THOMAS A. BENDER, M.D.,

a witness herein, taken as on direct examination by

the Defendant pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil

Procedure and agreement of counsel at the off'ices cf

Allstate, 3345 Whitfield Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio on

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. before Connie

Adkins-Ihle, audio visual technician, and Kat:herine

H. Depperman, Registered Professional Reporter and

Notary Public.

Oi,IVER REPORTING SERVICES(513) 683-9626

a (00?15(/

27

E 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

15

16

17

.8

i 9

20

21

22

23

24

A Correct.

Q Now, Doctor, do you -- you perform 300 of

these examinations a year?

A In the past I have. Probably in the year

the 2005 about. 230, 240.

Q All right. Now, in the past, as I

underatood it, you did about 300 exams a year, a

hundred of which were in the personal injury realm,

200 of which were for Worker's Compensation, or

governmental agencies, and you were examining these

people for the governmental agencies in terms of

claimants requesting governmental benefits, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, these hundred or so personal injury

evaluations, would you agree with me that upwards of

90 percent of those were performed for defendants in

lawsuits?

A About 85 percent, 86 percent I believe. I

think you're quoting, when i looked at this back in

19 -- or 2003, and it's pretty much the same.

Probably one-third, two-thirds as you have outlined,

maybe even more so for the government agencies now,

but --

Q All right. Actually, I think I'm quoting

OL=VER REPORTING SERVICES(513)683-9626

E

28

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

2004. But be that as it may, are you still making

in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a year

performing these examinations and providing

testimony?

A No, sir.

Q How much are you making these days?

A Last year I had a W-2 of $93,000 for this

type of procedure for the entire year of 2005.

Q And you've been performing these

examinations for at least the past ten years and

earning that type of money for at least the past ten

years, have you not?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right. Now, you didn't take any

x-rays, did you?

A No, Z did not.

Q Now, as I understand it, and this is the

history that was taken from Mr. Oliver, that he was

hit, his vehicle was hit from the driver's side?

A Correct. Sideswiped, yes.

Q

curb?

All right. And his vehicle went up on a

A Correct.

Q And he hit his right knee on the ashtray?

OLIVER REPORTING SERVICES(513)683-9626

..

11111111111 COURT OF COMMON PLEASHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

YVONNE DUHART AND THETHE ESTATE OF PEARLIE DUHART

Plaintiffs

vs.

GEORGE HILL

Defendants

Case No. A0307154

(Judge Thomas Nurre)

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS

We, the Jury, being duly impaneled and sworn and affirmed, find the issues in

this case in favor of the Plaintiffs Yvonne Duhart and the Estate of Pearlie Duhart,

and assess the amount due to the Plaintiffs from the Defendant the said George Hill:

$ 5 dC^ ^ ^ for Yvonne Duhart$ 0o0

for the Estate of Pearlie Duhart

And we do so render our verdict upon the concurrence of .8 members

of our said Jury, that being three fourths or more of our number. Each of us said

dtjurors concurring in said verdict signs his or her name hereto this /0 day of

wI ."I'll'

RANDALL OLIVER Case No. A041Oi48

vs.


Plaintiff (Judge Thomas Nurre)

ASHLEY ROEDERSHEIMER VERDICT FORM

Defendant

^ [I 'J +,MAY 18 2006

We, the Jury, being duly impaneled and swom and affimied, find the issues in

this case in favor of the Plaintiff Randall Oliver, and assess the amount due to the

Plaintiff from the Defendant the said Ashley Roederaheimer:

Past Medical Expenses $ 3%p2 ^ o c)

Past Pain and Suffering $ kuo0. UO

Past Loss of Enjoyment of Life $ O,^jp

Future Medical Expensas $ (). 00

Future Pain and SuR'er9ng $ 0100Future Loss of Enjoyment of Life $ p. 00

TOTAL $ +-M02.00

And we do so render our verdict upon the concurrence of (,+ members

of our said Jury, that being three fourths or more of our number. Each of us said

jurors concurring in said verdict signs his or her name hereto this 1 1'3^ day of

IE NTF I6.1s, h`;.

JUl, 10 2006

RANDALL OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASCIVIL DIVISION


vs

ASHLEY ROEDERSHEIMER,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: A0410146

JUDGE: RICHARD A. NIEHAUS

ENTRY OF SATISFACTION OFJUDGMENT

The judgment rendered in the within cause having been fully satisfied, the same is hereby

discharged and held for naught.

Judge Richard A. Niehaus

_iQ.i^,^-^ ^ULA -David A. Laite (0047361)Brown, Lippert, Heile & Evans30 Garfield Place, 6th FloorCincinnati, OH 45202Telephone: 513 -241-1950Attomey for Plaintiff, Randall Oliver

94""m^WIIErika M. Van Ausdall (0072376)1014 Vine Street, Suite 2322Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Telephone: 513-421-9222Attomey for Defendant, Ashley Roedersheimer

02-t0e81T

RITA VALE, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

n[fp'A4!lt F,

JUN 2 6 2006 0064057Karen E. Cater

Attomey for Defentlant, Hany Carpenter

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


Case No. A0409447

Judge Patrick Dinkelacker

ENTRY OF SATISFACTIONOFJUDGMENT

STATE FARM MUTUALAUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., et al.

Defendants.

The judgment rendered in the within cause having been fully satisfied, the same

is hereby discharged and held for naught.

(i' 1ÎL Tî4-OtjQ tMichael B. Ganson (0015944)2306 Park Avenue, Suite 101Cincinnati, Ohio 45206

f(IM

Jud

2-

SJ-Z Q!P-,2 Fdx'F ra s^`ti^kfJe^Steven J. Zeehandelar (0019561)471 East Broad Street, 12L" FloorPO Box 15069Columbus, Ohio 43215

G" ^"4 "(1Karen E. Carter (0064067)225 Pictoria Dr., Suite 220Cincinnati, Ohio 45246

OF COM ON P EAS/EN

//_

70FARTIESPI'9$UAtv'RULE SB WHlCH 6Â, , .:.AS_9OST8 HERE 1:.

I

LIc cS' )6• i!.

1

D68937019

111

Ex-3I

COURT OF COMMON PLEASI-IAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

YVONNE DUHART, et al., Case No. A0307154

Plaintiff, Judge Thomas C. Nurre,Visiting Judge

-vs-

GEORGE I. HILL, ORDER OF SATISFACTION OFJUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL

Defendant. WITH PREJUDICE

ORDER

All appellate matters having been concluded, with the original judgment rendered herein

having been fully paid, the Clerk of Courts is hereby ordered to enter satisfaction of record and

this case is hereby dismissed, with prejudice to all further action. All unpaid court costs, if any,

remaining with the Common Pleas Court part of this lawsuit shall be paid by Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Approved:Judge Thomas C. Nurre, Visiting Judge

BENJAMIN, YOCUM & HEATHER, LLC

Timothy I^'/Heather, Esq. (0002776)300 Pike Street, Ste. 500Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Telephone: 513-721-5672Facsimile: 513-562-4388ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,GEORGE I. HILL

LAW OFFICES OF JAKE J. DUHART

Jake J. Duhart (0032458)7662 View Place DriveCincinnati, Ohio 45224ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,YVONNE DUHART ANDESTATE OF PEARLIE DUHART

ANstate lnsuTance Comea v- CI ' s Payment P oces maP. D. Box 650048 Dallas TX 75265

Alistate.Yw're;n gnpo nanOS.

ATTY TIMOTHY HEATHER312 ELM ST. 1850CINCINNATI OH 45202-3807

04/14/2008

ATTY TIMOTHY HEATHER.

ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.000.00 FOR YOUR CLAIM ARISING FROM BODILYINJURY CAUSED BY ACCIDENT ON 01/12/02

PLEASE REFERENCE CLAIM DETAILS BELOW.

CLAIM NUMBER; 2735252500

DATE OF LOSS: 01112/2002

INSURED: GEORGE I HILL

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

1-800-255-7828

q34KuSSlu

'7N$UR$P,^&E2jJ3(5E I:FMCL „

CLAIMA'NT^ pÂRLIE(fHAR '. Y`JN..FTAYMERIT QF,,GLAIM1I ARIgiNr,;MD

:ACCit7EtYY ON NtliZ^(12" . _ , .

70THE ESYATEOF PEARLIE'OUHART AND RORERT H .UT7WILLE51 HER ATYORNEY'- DOR ER:

56 E; F.OUF$TH ST - ' 'OF CINCjNWj.TPOH 45202'3607r

0000020080414002704ZCT01001001003440

.:IQY NUMLjE(j.v.• .Ci1RIM: - sER._;^. .

^.:TAX Ifll 4 IfE$K C'l`7G YE "iQ':

^XnwicKe\w„-

INy01Ck WlJM9ER^ '. MQO " !DATE ISSUÔ%-^9920 : `t)4/14/2bo6

VDIU IF NOT YRESE/3!ED W/THhY TNN[F HUNpaED. yYNTY-flVE DAYS OF D.1TE OF ISSU£

li' 1604 1B00911' 1:06 i 1 1 2?88l: 3 29 916 1 956 211' Ex-5------.------,-..--' `^"1NkYYKF.'INefI1(j(;NMFNYNlC^qFLy'L(`,TVFM:OYppN^qKfINT1FqLClC .^-^ .::-Il(1qllYf'^CHR1YlLlFqYqql(ÎS^NOTVINBLE.--

r

Altstate lncuranca Com n• Claims P ment ProcessinP.O. Box 650048, DaOas, TX 75265

(WAlistate.You'rc in gooE henEt

ATTY TIMOTHY HEATHER312 ELM ST. 1850CINCINNATI OH 45202-3807

04/14/2008

ATTY TIMOTHY HEATHER,

ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000.00 FOR YOUR CLAIM ARISING FROM BODILYINJURY CAUSED BY ACCIDENT ON 01/12/02

PLEASE REFERENCE CLAIM DETAILS BELOW.

CLAIM NUMBER: 2735252500

DATE OF LOSS: 01/12/2002

INSURED: GEORGE I HILL

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

1-800-255-7828

&29SSSNf

Iru^vRô^.9 I.ML - .•"^<

i1{^HART iCLAIM/jN7' jÊA[iLIE, .IN PQ,YMENT OF CLAIN) ARISI* MDMACCfDEN.YC^N Otrt2rQY

.... ... .....3 . : ^'\ .

SflAND Z6N0

TOTHE ESYATEOF PEARLIEiDUNART

36 Ei 60URTH 3T . ..^ . - ^.CINCjNN^T[ OH 452024807!

86DILY WURY ipAUS6DISY

0000020080414002704ZCT01001001003440

. 'iGY NUM@Eq-^ G lM. : r . .SJ289)I5'!1 ';78^9+', . ^

^TAXID `;^«

C1G `t;M YEISEp>< L

V 87,11 TWH,-..... 9alµr ut A!!WIÂ kA.:,Aeenu efh G'

\ gN,y^ w'mWCYi:^'. .

1;-oOOs'OO ;

AND RODERTH.

INpplCk WM&EW

0

MCO

3320..

. COMPiANY NAM^-

DATE ISSU^D;

\04L),4t2006`,.

IP.LESTATE ISURANCE COMFANY

VOlD tf NOT Ri£SFNTfO W/TN/N TtIN£E HUYDRED, S/XMFNF DAYS OF OATE OF ISyry/£AVTHORIZEq SrGNp.TURE6^ '^

;160413;(^Q9 ,.

,a;( Id,=P^

11' 1601. i80090 406 i1i 2788o: 329 91l 11562,18 Ex-6^-lìMpANitilNC^ll/)l'IIMFIlSHd6RFL1F(:TVFWATFRYl.RKf1NTHFi1ACJ('-^^-^- --^ MNMf .̀SQHIRYY1lTEFY^RICIR-N{1TVIfU61F.- --^

l IIttuI tYVONNE DUHART, et al.,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

GEORGE 1. HILL,

Defendant.


Case No. A0307154

Visiting Judge Thomas C. Nurre

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OFDEFENDANT. GFORGE I. HILL,FOR LEAVE TO PAY JUDGMENTINTO COURT AND FOR THIS COURTTO ISSUE ORDER OF SAT[SFACTIONOF JUDGMENT AND DISMISSALOF CASE

ORDER

This cause came before the Court upon the Motion of befendant, George I. Hill, for

Leave to Pay Judgment into Court and for this Court to issue an Order of Satisfaction of

Judgment and Dismissal of Case. Previously, in May, 2006, Plaintiff, Yvonne Duhart, obtained a

$5,000 judgment, and Plaintiff, the Estate of Pearlie Duhart, obtained a $1,000 judgment. This

Motion was precipitated by Plaintiffs' refusal to accept checks in the amount of each judgment

unless the checks did not have the name of one of their attorneys, Robert Gutzwiller, listed as

one of the payees.

The Court finds Defendant's Motion to be well taken and hereby grants same. Defendant,

George I. Hill, shall pay the $6,000 total judgment into the Clerk of Courts. At any time

thereafter, any party interested in obtaining the proceeds of the $6,000, be it Plaintiffs or the

attorrtey whose name Plaintiffs didn'i want listed as a payee on the judgment checks, Robert

Gutzwiller, may petition the Court for disbursement.

Upon Defendant's payment of the $6,000 into the Cletk of Courts, the Clerk of Courts

shall enter satisfaction of record, and this case shalt be dismissed, with prejudice to atl further

iI . E 1 ---

JUL 0120d8^ Ex-7

action. All unpaid court costs, if any, remaining with the Common Pleas part of this lawsuit shall

be paid by Defendant.

There being no just cause for delay, it is SO O'ADEI2ED.

1

BENJAMIN, YOCUM & HEATHER, LLC

^^^z 101^1?406tTimothy . Heather, Esq. (0002776)T}te American Book Building300 Pike Street, Suite 500Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-42227'clephone: 513-721-5672Fa cs i m i l e: 513 - 5 62-43 8 8E-mail: tpheather@a,)byhlaw.com,I rtorneysfor Defendant,George L Flill

LAW OFFICES OF JAKE DUHART

3.4^d,tb4law ¢" ef1/7rr^tt^°^ 6.^o.aT. .lrw^'^swdr ro^aeMtss^

Jake J. Duhart, Esq. 1141117662 View Place DriveCincinnati, OFl 45224Telephone: 513-761-5172Attorneys for Piaintiffs

2

cincinnati, f d 9. the case was placed on judge melba marsh's jury trial call for may 8, 2006...

Documents