Joseph brief in Ohio

2022As pertinent here, Civ.R. 59(A) provides that: 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 was prevented from having a fair trial; -11- *** (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; *** (5) Error in the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for th

2022As pertinent here, Civ.R. 59(A) provides that: 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 was prevented from having a fair trial; -11- *** (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; *** (5) Error in the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for th

2022As pertinent here, Civ.R. 59(A) provides that: 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 was prevented from having a fair trial; -11- *** (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; *** (5) Error in the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for th

2022As pertinent here, Civ.R. 59(A) provides that: 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 was prevented from having a fair trial; -11- *** (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; *** (5) Error in the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for th

2022Trumbull No. 2004-T-0013, 2005-Ohio-700, ¶ 17 . {¶ 40} Holly also contends that even if error occurred, it was harmless because Joseph’s motion was vague and alleged that Judge Brady had failed to consider various issues, when the judge actually had considered them in detail.

2022Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 83 , 262 N.E.2d 685 (1970), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. {¶ 32} Joseph’s brief does not challenge the factual correctness of the judge’s decision, i.e., he does not claim that his motion for new trial should have been granted.

2022Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 83 , 262 N.E.2d 685 (1970), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. {¶ 32} Joseph’s brief does not challenge the factual correctness of the judge’s decision, i.e., he does not claim that his motion for new trial should have been granted.

2014Smith, 197 Ohio App.3d 742 , 2012-Ohio-532 , 968 N.E.2d 625, at ¶ 16 .

2014Smith, 197 Ohio App.3d 742 , 2012-Ohio-532 , 968 N.E.2d 625, at ¶ 16 .

2011“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 , quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, Patricia argues that the court erred as a matter of law by overruling her objection to the magistrate’s decision and subsequently denying her motion in opposition and to strike, and granting Joseph’s motion to vacate and motion for nunc pro tunc entr

2011“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 , quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, Patricia argues that the court erred as a matter of law by overruling her objection to the magistrate’s decision and subsequently denying her motion in opposition and to strike, and granting Joseph’s motion to vacate and motion for nunc pro tunc entr

2011“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 , quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, Patricia argues that the court erred as a matter of law by overruling her objection to the magistrate’s decision and subsequently denying her motion in opposition and to strike, and granting Joseph’s motion to vacate and motion for nunc pro tunc entr

2011“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 , quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 8} In her first assignment of error, Patricia argues that the court erred as a matter of law by overruling her objection to the magistrate’s decision and subsequently denying her motion in opposition and to strike, and granting Joseph’s motion to vacate and motion for nunc pro tunc entr

2007Thus, he met two of the necessary requirements, those of timeliness and "grounds for relief." Maddox v. Ward , Cuyahoga App. No. 87090, 2006-Ohio-4099 ; cf., West Terrace, Inc. v. Davison (Aug. 29, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58713. {¶ 15} However, the evidence Petratos presented was inadequate to establish the remaining requirement, viz., that he had a meritorious defense to Joseph's claim.

2003We, however, believe the citation was a misprint and was intended to address Boertlein's testimony relating to a phone conversation between Pamela and Joseph. 16 See id. at 79 , citing State v. Webb (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 325 , 335 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 . 17 As we discussed earlier, Joseph's brief contains only references to page numbers in the transcript when identifying an alleged error.

2003We, however, believe the citation was a misprint and was intended to address Boertlein's testimony relating to a phone conversation between Pamela and Joseph. 16 See id. at 79 , citing State v. Webb (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 325 , 335 , 638 N.E.2d 1023 . 17 As we discussed earlier, Joseph's brief contains only references to page numbers in the transcript when identifying an alleged error.

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2003We believe the citation given in this instance was a misprint and address the hearsay evidence relating to a phone conversation. 18 See Evid.R. 801(C). 19 See State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21 , 514 N.E.2d 394 . 20 See id. at 21-22 . 21 See Lee v. Baldwin (1987), 35 Ohio App.3d 47 , 49 , 519 N.E.2d 662 . 22 See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591 , 603 , 729 N.E.2d 431 . 23 Id., quoting State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 426 , 648 N.E.2d 861 . 24 See State v. Sibert , supra, at 426 . 25 See Evid.R. 103(A)(1). 26 See Evid.R. 103(D); Crim.R. 52(B). 27 State v. Ba

2002(S.D.Miss.2000), 113 F.Supp.2d 1026 (permitting bank to impose arbitration by mailing clause to customers, although customers did not sign any document); but, see, Badie v. Bank of Am. (1998), 67 Cal.App.4th 779 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 277 (holding that bank could not amend the terms of credit card account agreements by adding an arbitration clause, despite provisions in the account agreements authorizing the bank to change terms of the accounts). {¶ 13} We also reject Joseph’s claim that the amendment is unconscionable because it is a “one-sided self-serving” provision.

1998However, "intervention is seldom granted after judgment is entered unless the intervenor has no other alternative remedy and intervention is the only way to protect the intervenor’s rights.” Kleemeyer v. Hummel (May 6, 1996), Brown App. No. CA95-10-017, unreported, 1996 WL 227381 , citing Likover v. Cleveland (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 154, 159 , 14 O.O.3d 125, 128 , 396 N.E.2d 491, 494-495 .

1998However, "intervention is seldom granted after judgment is entered unless the intervenor has no other alternative remedy and intervention is the only way to protect the intervenor’s rights.” Kleemeyer v. Hummel (May 6, 1996), Brown App. No. CA95-10-017, unreported, 1996 WL 227381 , citing Likover v. Cleveland (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 154, 159 , 14 O.O.3d 125, 128 , 396 N.E.2d 491, 494-495 .