two-day hearing in Ohio

2025In State v. Dye, 2024-Ohio-3191 (8th 7 Dist.), the trial court allowed discovery and held a two-day hearing before denying the defendant’s untimely petition for postconviction relief, determining that the defendant had not been unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which he relied in his petition.

2024Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 73 , 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991), fn. 3, quoting 65 American Jurisprudence 2d, Receivers, Sections 19, 20 at 873, 874 (1974). {¶ 16} Following the two-day hearing, the trial court noted in its August 2, 2023 decision and order that, in addition to establishing that the loan was in default, Lender presented evidence that Borrower had obtained additional loans secured by the properties without notice to or approval from Lender, that Borrower had failed to maintain and fund cash management accounts, that the properties had a significant number of unusable rooms, an

2024Celebrezze v. Gibbs, 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 73 , 573 N.E.2d 62 (1991), fn. 3, quoting 65 American Jurisprudence 2d, Receivers, Sections 19, 20 at 873, 874 (1974). {¶ 16} Following the two-day hearing, the trial court noted in its August 2, 2023 decision and order that, in addition to establishing that the loan was in default, Lender presented evidence that Borrower had obtained additional loans secured by the properties without notice to or approval from Lender, that Borrower had failed to maintain and fund cash management accounts, that the properties had a significant number of unusable rooms, an

2022Id.; My Father's House No. 1 v. McCardle, 2013-Ohio-420 , 986 N.E.2d 1081 , ¶ 16 (3d Dist.) (parties submitted pre-hearing briefs, submitted evidence during a two-day hearing, and submitted post-hearing briefs). [A] trial court's error in considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion as a summary judgment motion generally does not affect the parties' substantial rights, and is therefore harmless, when (1) both parties rely on evidence outside the complaint, (2) the non-moving party had sufficient notice and opportunity to respond, and (3) no prejudice results.

2017Youngstown argues that the trial court's legal determination on the facts heard at the two-day hearing is in error and that the General Assembly did violate this "three-reading rule." Id.

2013In re G.M., 2011-Ohio-4090, at ¶ 16 . {¶23} The trial court held a two-day hearing on SCDJFS’ motion to grant the DeLaRosas legal custody of L.P. and W.P.

2011It also embraces actual intent to mislead or deceive another.’” Keggan, supra, at ¶11 , quoting State v. Smith, Montgomery App. No. 20247, 2005-Ohio-1374, ¶7 , additional citations omitted. {¶ 22} Boles has failed to provide us with a transcript of the two-day hearing on his motion to dismiss.

2011It also embraces actual intent to mislead or deceive another.’” Keggan, supra, at ¶11 , quoting State v. Smith, Montgomery App. No. 20247, 2005-Ohio-1374, ¶7 , additional citations omitted. {¶ 22} Boles has failed to provide us with a transcript of the two-day hearing on his motion to dismiss.

2008However, the fact that the representative is a creditor of the estate has been held not alone sufficient ground for removal." Id., quoting 33 Corpus Juris Secundum 1036, Executors and Administrators, Section 90. {¶ 33} Here, our review of the record demonstrates that the probate court considered all the facts and evidence presented during the two-day hearing on appellants' exceptions to *Page 10 the first partial account and motion to remove appellee as executrix, and concluded that appellee's removal was not warranted under the circumstances.

2007He claims the trial court's decision is "contrary to R.C. § 3[1]09.051 and/or contrary to a dependency action." In support of his argument, Puterbaugh relies exclusively on In re E.H. , Lorain App. No. 04CA008585, 2005-Ohio-1952 .