SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel.
DOUGLAS C. BARTON
Relator, Pro Se
437 Warwick Place
Fairborn, OH 45324
Supreme Court Case No:
Relators,
vs.
KEESHA A. BARTON
2352 Barnard Drive
Fairborn, OH 45324
and
TIMOTHY CAMPBELL
(Personal & Professional Capacity)
57 Junkin Road
Xenia, OH 45385
and
STEPHEN HURLEY
(Personal & Professional Capacity)
1595 Hussey Road
Xenia, OH 45385
and
Greene County Domestic Relations Court,
et. al.
595 Ledbetter Road
Xenia, OH 45385
and
Charles Slicer
9538 Quailwood Trail
Dayton, OH 45458
and
Case No. 2013-DR-0207
Court of Appeals No. 2014-CA-0046
Case No. 2013-DV-0193
Court of Appeals No. 2014-CA-0021
_^ 1^.. `•-'=--^ f-f °-. ..:^^^
. :.-.^ .^ .. ;: . . .
:'°,,;Ir ,r•;s^ ;
<.;8_ ' i'4.s^ r;s'
i
;.i
.,
i
!.^s
oi
3 c's ;
ORIGINAL ACTION IN
1ltd R IT OF MA N DA IVI U S
AND PROHIBITION
David McNamee
2625 Commons Blvd, Suite A
Beavercreek, OH 45431
And
Ohio 2"d District Court of Appeals
41 N. Perry Street, Fifth Floor
Dayton, OH 45422-2170
Respondents,
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
Page 1 of 17
t";
'.i ! y' ^.^
°°[A] pro se petitioner's pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice."
United States v. Gnrtta,188 F.3d 99,108 (3d Cir. 1999).
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be
defeated under the name of iocal practice." Davis v. Wechier, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stomberb v.
California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449.
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"...
"a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law". Simmons v. United States, 390
U.S. 377 (1968)
This original action is brought in the name of the State on the relation of DOUGLAS C.
BARTON who is requesting the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition. This original action is
brought to compel the Respondents to comply with the US Constitution, the Ohio Constitution,
and the law. The Respondents failed to comply with the law, committed fraud of the court and
committed fraud upon the court.
The transcript of the trial court or appellate court does not contain a report of all
evidence admitted or proffered by the appellant.
JURISDICTION
1. Relator DOUGLAS C. BARTON is a resident of the State of Ohio, County of Greene.
2. The Ohio Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over this matter per Ohio Constitution,
Article IV, Section 2.
Page 2 of 17
3. This Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition ("Complaint") seeks orders of the
court to correct the civil rights violations (multiple), fraud of the court, fraud upon the court
and misconduct of the attorneys/judges involved.
4. The Relator has attempted to exhaust remedies by administrative remedies. Relator has no
adequate remedy at law.
5. This action is within the statue of limitations. The first act of misconduct by the
Respondents was on 4 December 2013.
6. This complaint is supported by Affidavit of Douglas C. Barton; Verified Petition and
Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.
PARTIES
The following chart should indicate to this Court the status of the individuals as related to these
cases. (In chronological order), References in this document are to Relator Douglas C. Barton,
Respondent Keesha A. Barton.
TRIAL. CASE NUMBER APPEAL CASE PL.AINTIFF DEFENDANT
NUMBER
CRB1301210 STATE OF OHIO KEESHA A. BARTON
2013-DR-0207 2014-CA-0046 DOUGLAS C. BARTON KEESHA A. BARTON
2013-DV-0193 2014-CA-0021 KEESHA A. BARTON DOUGLAS C. BARTON
2013-DV-0196 DOUGLAS C. BARTON KEESHA A. BARTON
3:14-CV-0001 DOUGLAS C. BARTON HURLEY, et. aI.
CVI-1400028 DOUGLAS C. BARTON KEESHA A. BARTON
1. Keesha A. Barton is an individual that was arrested for Domestic Violence by the
Fairborn Police Department. Relator Douglas C. Barton subsequently filed for divorce.
The respondent Keesha A. Barton then committed fraud by applying for a civil
Page 3 of 17
protection order the day after her plea deal. The fraud committed was as part of her
plea deal to lesser charges in the Domestic Violence action was to take'°no further
action". Respondent also committed spoliation of evidence by not producing an original
or copy of the antenuptial agreement. Respondent also committed numerous violations
of her civil protection order upon presentation of evidence. Respondent also committed
fraud directly in court (detailed below).
2. The Greene County Domestic Relations Court ("GCDRC") violated the law and Relator's
civil rights (US Constitution &®hio Constitution) on the 4 th of December by not granting
the full hearing. The respondents (federal case 3:14-CV-0001) admitted to the factual
circumstances but claimed immunity. A complaint was filed with US Department of
Justice on 9 December 20131. The GCDRC refused to grant a timely hearing,
subsequently a lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court on 2 January 2014 (3:14-CV0001)
3. Stephen Hurley failed to correct the civil rights violations when brought to his attention,
he failed to properly supervise and train his staff. Respondent continues to violate the
civil rights of the citizens of Greene County by issuing mutual restraining orders
immediately upon filing of divorce action and failing to give due process (hearing).
4. Timothy Campbell was assigned upon the filing of 3:14-CV-0001. Respondent failed to
correct the civil rights violations of predecessors, failed to follow the law, permitted and
encouraged fraud, and operated a "kangaroo court". Respondent when directly
informed of a due process violations, ignored this and ruled for contempt. Respondent
1 See Relator Exhibit "A"
Page 4 of 17
failed to provide equal protection to Relator, allowed fraud to be committed directly
before him.
5. Charles Slicer (attorney for Keesha A. Barton) lied to trial court about reason for
deposition (purely for harassment). Relator has an audio recording of Mr. Slicer that
properly characterizes his misconduct, that can be presented to this court. Respondents
Charles Slicer and David McNamee also participated in the spoliation of evidence and
discovery abuses by failing to produce the original or copy of antenuptial agreement.
Respondent Charles Slicer and David McNamee also participated in the procurement of
fraud upon the court by misrepresenting the fraudulent title.
6. The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals has knowledge of the civil rights violations
and have failed to act. The respondent has shown a negative bias to "pro se" petitioner.
The respondent has failed to even acknowledge or answer proper motions filed upon
the court (one example 2014-CA-0021 Motion to Stay filed 5/16/14, no action by court
to date). Other actions by respondent when they have answered a motion are an
attempt to defeat the defense of Civil Rights by local procedure and protection of a
corrupt trial court and officers of the court.
RELATOR HAS NO ADEQUATE REINlEDY AT LA1N
The unlawful acts of the trial court, the fraud of the court, fraud upon the court, and the
collusion of the attorneys and judges to protect their corruption does not allow an adequate
remedy at law.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Page 5 of 17
Keesha A. Barton committed fraud upon the court, the Plaintiff-Appellee attorney(s)
(Bryan Penick, Daima Grandjean, Charles Slicer) committed misconduct and fraud upon the
court. The court committed fraud, and numerous civil rights violations upon Relator. The fraud
as committed by the court and the civil rights violations are my Appellant Briefs (both cases).
The civil rights violations are documented in Federal Case #3:14-CV-0001, to which the
"defendants" officers of the court admitted to the factual circumstances of violations of due
process. The following are not the only acts of misconduct, they are the major highlights of
misconduct and fraud. "Prima facie"to any reasonable person should cause great concern as to
the validity of any judgment rendered.
Jurisdiction was lost due to the following: Fraud Committed in the procurement of
jurisdiction, Fraud upon the court, Fraud of the court, Judge not following statutory procedure,
Unlawful activity of a judge, Violations of due process.
FRAUD UPON THE COURT #1
Keesha A. Barton and Attorney Slicer presented evidence (hearing June 6th, 2014) that
the 2005 KZ Toyhauler (travel trailer) was jointly titled. They presented a title that showed both
names (Douglas C. Barton & Keesha A. Barton); that had been issued during the pendency of
these actions. Keesha A. Barton committed fraud and contempt of court by obtaining the
fraudulent title and subsequent vehicle registration. As an officer of the court Attorney Slicer
conducted his part of the fraud by filing motions and affidavits that influenced the court, were
based on fraud and contempt of court (violation of the mutual restraining order). During the
July 9th & August 11'h , 2014 hearing, the Douglas C. Barton presented evidence and testimony
of Keesha A. Barton's (and Attorney Slicer) fraud. Keesha A. Barton conducted the fraud by
Page 6 of 17
obtaining a new title with both names encumbering the title. Previous to Keesha A. Barton
actions the title was only in the Douglas C. Barton's name solely. When Relator was
investigating how this could be done without his signature, the fraud was discovered. When
Relator pointed this out to the Greene County Clerk of Courts-Title Division, they quickly
agreed. The title division immediately canceled the fraudulent title, and re-issued the previous
title. The title division then assisted in explaining the situation to the Deputy Registar's office to
have the previous registration re-instated. This is not simply about fraudulent documents, and
false statements. The use of the fraudulent documents were used to materially corrupt and
influence the trial court. Timothy Campbell did not perform his judicial function, when
presented clear and convincing evidence of the fraud and contempt of court orders, ignored
the fraudulent acts. His failure to act demonstrates his bias, prejudice and partiality to the
Keesha A. Barton and other officers of the court.
FRAUD UPOhI TFIE COURT #t2
Bryan Penick committed fraud upon the court in conspiracy with the Keesha A. Barton
and the court. As the Keesha A. Barton's criminal attorney, he had knowledge at the time of
Keesha A. Barton's plea deal to the lesser charge of domestic violence, and was to take no
further action. As the Keesha A. Barton's civil attorney, he had knowledge of and knew of the
divorce action. Mr. Penick did not file a notice of appearance2 with the court after the Keesha
A. Barton filed for a protection order pro se. The court subsequently showed Mr. Penick as my
attorney on the docket. The court subsequently granted a motion of continuance to the
Defendant, the court violated Ohio Law by providing a hearing within 10 days. No good cause
2 See Relator Exhibit "B"; Disciplinary Counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio March 3, 2014
Page 7 of 17
was shown, and if merely filing for a continuance is good cause, a petitioner could effectively
manipulate the process indefinitely. Granting the motion violated the Relator's constitutional
rights guaranteed by the 2"d, 51" 6 th and 14t" Amendments.
FRAUD UPON THE COURT #3
Attorney Dalma Grandjean committed fraud upon the court by proposing a draft of her
client's (Defendant-Appellee) agreement to dismissal of the protection order, but only on the
condition that Relator inform the United States Air Force that he lied about her arrest (Relator
refused, since this was clearly perjury). Prima facie this is a clear and distinct lack of ethics and
integrity expected of a member of our society. These conversations can all be directly
supported by the security video/audio of the Greene County DRC lobby.
SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE
The antenuptial financial schedules were withheld by the Keesha A. Barton who refused
discovery of the items (spoliation of evidence). Due to the Keesha A. Barton's arrest for
Domestic Violence 3 and subsequent protection order against her, Relator was not in a position
to retrieve his full copy of the antenuptial agreement. Relator instructed attorney #1 & #2 to
subpoena the documents, with specific instructions on their last known location. Relator also
instructed attorney #1 & #2 to subpoena the documents from David McNamee. The Keesha A.
Barton, attorney Charles Slicer, and attorney David McNamee have conducted spoliation of
evidence. Specifically Rule 8.4 Misconduct items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (h), Rule 4.1
Truthfulness in Statements to Others (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a
third person, (b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting
3 State of Ohio v Keesha A. Barton, CRB1301210; Relator Exhibit °'C"
Page 8 of 17
an illegal or}'raudulent act by a client.4 (emphasis added) Their general absence of ethics and
integrity are an affront to reasonable persons.
If a person negligently or intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that
will be required in an action is liable for spoliation of evidence. The Keesha A. Barton was under
a restraining order. See also ORC 2921.32 Obstructing justice.
Relator Douglas C. Barton has an audio recording (voicemail) of David McNamee directly
related to my attempts to procure one of the originals. Attorney #2 has electronic records of
attempt to procure the items under discovery. David McNamee refused discovery of copy of
antenuptial agreement.
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
At the initial filing of 2013-DRa0207 "automatic" mutual restraining orders were issued
by "GCDRC'".1'his is a direct violation of due process, since there was never a hearing to address
restriction of civil liberties. This also falls into fraud upon the court, since almost a year had past
since the initial filing when Mr. Slicer filed Motion to Show Cause. The fraud aies in the
presumption of guilt without the benefit of proper due process. Simply providing service is not
sufficient, and a contempt "hearing" after the fact is not sufficient when Relator never had an
opportunity to present objections to the order at a proper hearing specifically addressing those
issues. This is just one of many due process violations. The respondents blatant disregard for
the civil rights is unbelievable.
US CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS
&Ohio Professional Rules of Conduct, page 187 (June 1, 2014)
Page9of17
The trial court violated the Relator's constitutional rights (15t, 2"d, 4tn, 5qn, 7t", 8tn, 13th,
14I" Amendment) as detailed in Relator's Appellant Brief(s). The Appellate Court has not acted
in any meaningful way to remedy the constitutional violations. The Appellate Court has
knowledge of the violations and is at fault for failing to act5.
OHIO CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS
The respondents violated the Relator's Ohio constitutional rights, Article 1, Section 10a
Rights of Victims of Crimes. As well the corresponding Ohio constitutional rights as described in
above.
Araument & Law
a) US Constitution Supreme Clause Article IV, Clause 2 of the Constitution (This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof: ...... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding.) Absolute immunity is contrary.
b) COURT HAS NO DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT. Export v. Reef,
54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (gth Cir. 1995)
42 U.S.C. §1985 (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
42 U.S.C. §1986 Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and
mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to
prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such
wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured.......
Page 10 of 17
c) "Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and in such case proceedings cannot
be validly continued beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases". Federal Trade
Commision v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed 1324, 51 S.Ct. 587
d) Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (10t" Cir. 1994) held that "`whert the rule providing for
relief from a void judgment is applicable, relief is not discretionary, but is rnandatory.,,
e) Jaffe v. Van Brunt, 158 E.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) held "`Jud;grraents entered where
courts lack either subject matter jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in
violation of due process of law, must be set aside."
f) "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nuilities. They are not
voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal
in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in
executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v.
Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
g) VOID JUDGMENT. One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be
asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or
collaterally. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null,
without iegal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any
manner or to any degree. Judgment is a"void judgment" if court that rendered
judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a
manner inconsistent with due process. See also Voidable judgment [Black's Law
Dictionary]
Page11of17
h) A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the
parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order
or judgment, or where the order was procured by ft°aud. In re Adoption of E.L., 733
N.E.2d 846, (III. App. 1 Dist. 2000).
i) Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the
subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process,
Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. S. Klugfa v. U.S.,
620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
j) Ohio courts have inherent authority to vacate a void judgment. Patton v. Diemer ( 1988),
35 Ohio St.3d 68.
k) In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that'"Disqualification is required if an objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a
judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and
impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.'"Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct.
1147, 1162 ( 1994).
I) Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking
for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that'"We
think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if
no motion or affidavit is filed." United States v. Balistr^eri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
(Section 455(a)
m) Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to
follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge
Page 12 of 17
has given another example of his'°appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further
disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge,
then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly
disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been
disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a
matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself,
then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United
States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias
or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."),
n) Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has
been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the
Federal Crfr»e of "iaaterference wfth eaateestate carrsmet°ce'° (emphasis added) The judge
has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has
been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than
someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges
may not follow the law.
o) "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law,
however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has
the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest
v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
Page 13 of 17
p) The trial court demonstrated incompetence of the law6 as applied in Ohio as follows:
"From this context, the Ohio Supreme Court explained in Gross that the requirement of
"full disclosure" is satisfied "either by the exhibiting of the attachment to the
antenuptial agreement of a listing of the assets of the parties to the agreement, or
alternatively a showing that there had been a fu11 disclosure by other means"'
(emphasis added).
q) The respondent "GCDRC" lost evidence for case 2014-CA-0021, that subsequently was
"found". Relator questions the chain of custody, the validity of what was transmitted to
the Second District Court of Appeals. This is one of multiple "administrative" mistakes,
that suggest gross negligence and incompetence of the court staff and the
supervisionjtraining of the court staff by Stephen Hurley.
r) A separate and distinct issue is the "spoliation of evidence" by Respondents which is
recognized as a possible separate tort action with punitive damages. This court has
recognized intentional spoliation in Smith v. Howard lohnson Company, Inc., 615 N.E.2d
1037 (Ohio 1993).
s) "If a lower court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed in cause,
prohibition will issue to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to
correct the results of prior jurisdictionally unauthorized actions." State ex rei. Mayer v.
Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (2002)
6 See Relator Exhibit D "12 Sep 2014 Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce"
' Gross v Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d at 105, also see Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 2013-Ohio-1222
Page 14 of 17
t) A writ of mandamus will lie "where it is apparent from the record that the inferior court
had no jurisdiction ... even though the party aggrieved may also be entitled to appeai."
State ex rel. Bullard v. O'Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182, 184 (1990)
RELIEF SOUGHT
Because of the extraordinary circumstances herein involving several important issues
that are ripe for court review, Douglas C. Barton, Relator, respectfully prays for this Court to
issue the following:
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
An emergency order to the respondent(s) for Temporary Injunction against all orders,
until the pendency of this original action.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
An order to the respondent(s) to stop the issuance of mutual restraining orders
automatically upon filing of actions by citizens. Furthermore, no mutual restraining order will
be valid until a proper hearing (on record) is held. The respondent(s) current local policies and
practice are contradictory to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. The US Constitution
states only one command twice, the 5Ih & 14Ih Amendment's respectively.
An order to the respondent(s) to stop the issuance of any type of civil protection orders
against military members [Active, Reserve, Retired-(entitled to retirement pay)]. The Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has personal jurisdiction over military members. Any orders
issued by respondent(s) would be usurpation (and exceed their jurisdiction) of United States
Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress "`.....To make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces;....". In the interest of the public; respondent(s) should
Page 15 of 17
be permitted (but take no other action) to forward any complaint received to the appropriate
Department of Defense component.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
An order to the respondent(s) to VOID all judgments issued. Pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)(6) and Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
60(b)(1)(2)(3)(5) or others that may be appropriate.
An order to the respondent(s) to prepare transcripts of trial court at States expense.
A order for granting a change of venue for re-filing of Divorce (as Plaintiff as in 2013-DR0207) if Mandamus is granted.
An order of disbarment of Charles Slicer and David McNamee respectively for multiple
violations of the Ohio Professional Rules of Conduct Rule 8.4 MISCONDUCT (a)(b)(c)(d)(f)(g)(h).
Specifically but not limited to commission of Fraud upon the Court.
An order for a public disciplinary hearing for Bryan Penick and Daima Grandjean
respectively for multiple violations of the Ohio Professional Rules of Conduct Rule 8.4
MISCONDUCT (a)(b)(c)(d)(f)(g)(h).
An order for a public disciplinary hearing for Stephen Hurley and Timothy Campbell
respectively for multiple violations Ohio Judicial Code of Conduct; Cannon 1 lack of integrity,
impartiality and appearance of impropriety. Rule 1.1 the Trial Court did not comply with the
law. Rule 1.2 [5]; Cannon 2 Rule 202, Rule 2.3 (A), (C); Rule 2.5 (A), (B); Rule 2.6 (A); Rule 2.9
(A4),(A6) (D); Rule 2.12 (A), (B);.
An order to the Second District Court of Appeals reminding them of their duties
according to the Ohio Judicial Code of Conduct, specifically but not limited to Rule 2.15
Page 16 of 17
Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct, and responsibilities under 42 U.S.C. §1986
Action for Neglect to Prevent. A handwritten letter of apology from each member would suffice
as remedy.
Issue orders for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate based on the facts and
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
^,..r^'"
:^`^.,^'
^
:,.
...✓^^'
^^j^^-
""^g'''y
DOUGLAS C. BARTON,
RELATOR, PRO SE
437 WARWICK PLACE
FAIRBORN, OH 45324
513-508-7515
AFFIDAVIT
I, DOUGLAS C. BAR'i°Ci:N Relator herein, swear or affirm that I have read this document and, to
the best of my knowledge and beiief, the facts and information stated in this document are
true, accurate and complete. I understand that if I do not tel[ the truth, I may be subject to
_..r.^
penalties for perjury.
DOUGLAS C. BARTON
Sworn before me and signed in my presence this day r)o of
^"j f
W
^
Cynihia L. Manning
Notary Public, State of Ohio
o My Commission Expires 07-29-2017
Notary Public
My Commission Expires.
^ T^~Ifil^plt 1`^4'i*
Page 17 of 17
20Li
^^^^
US Department o'k.Tuqice
Civil Rights 13fviseon
9.?O Pennsylvania Ave.'v. W.
Office oi the Assistaaifi Atto;'nev Gencrai, iv'1ai:z
Washington, D.c. 20530
9 .Doct?mber 2013
I'€3 wliorn it may concern,
Mv naine is Douglas C. Barton. Nvty ivi.fe Keesha A. Barton vvas arrested ctn ?6 ,lrrtt 2013 for Domestic
Violence by the ^aiYborrt Olllo Police De.parrtme4tt. I xvas 'gra,ited a Doinphtlc Violence Temporary -Protectioti Order
{DVTPO) by Fairborn N-'t:rri:c.ipal Court, S1ic :s ActiveDLity Miiit.art' t'JS;AF}. I: l;.acl -sileti fo3' divorce ori 16 Aug
2013. Stie plead to a lesser Llaar;e c^i-i 26 Nov 2013, w-hicii terminated the 1.-3V1 PO. '1"'he agt-ec;mcnt with tlYe Victiins
Advocate and Prosecator was that she pleatl GiriJtir to tlic lesser charge, not take ant fustlser activn, and not cotzttd;:t a
protec:tiol-t oa•der thrcrowMzi Greene County Donzestic Relatii3ns Cc;ut c. '^k'hdn I at-rivod at Greene Coazntv DRC oci 2"t
Nov 1;; I%vas infoi-3tted that I had to retE.srrt on Tvlnnc€ay 2 I)efM :?0 1; as tl"icy didn"t i,avc tiirte To iit nie in. I was
se;vc.cl with a Proteb>ts^.ir3 C)rder oit. Friday 29 ?eov 2013. Which is cspecially cruel as the a;yn;versar^ of my sons'
deat'n is 7hanksgi:-ing 1:}ay, t did file andsas graited iny P~ctcction Order on Morsclay 2 L)e=v 13, lyowcver the
iviagist: ste aNa; vLSy relucta3it since the age o# any corrtplaint iteiais wcre from ^irtoritlis prior, wliPn in t•ealit v it was
oniy I rlar fi-om the tern:ir:ation oi t:h other protection orcler. I'1-k,.rc 4vas a schcduled ficaring on 4 Dec 20 114 for me
tc> arswer to lier complaint eharaLs. I presented r,x;'se'•11'to the couit at 9.atm for ttie 9: 30ain hearin^. At that ti€ne I svas
informed by the staff niw' had bwr;n conxinued by 1}e4• a,ttorney. She clid n;>t have € ci attorriey at the tiinc of
tilitig. According to Olzio lav. they must -asant rne a.4tearin^ ^^it3ziii 7 elay^s offili^ra. I laave's^ar^ itu hca•iiig, ajid m^,^
case against her has been continued also. i feel ttia4 rs^^^ ci^%il ri;hts have Leim and continuei, to be violated. The
Greene Coiktatv Dornestic Relatioiis Cc+rzrt lias in inv opiniori s;iown clea• bias and prcjut#ice for niy gcndcr, arsdncrt
afforcled ma c^ue prJccss, iann suffering ifrestn the r?.ental arz,_, !=h attd sortusc th:t there is n t1hing I can uo, I couid be
ar°csTed effortl;.-ss;v with ^ffilse claims and completely at tlierr Frb3-;:y. I liave found aii attorney for ^r= protection
order cla.izxi, bttt I sti111iavA tio relie1'.
Applicable i:.otirt C ases & l.:ocaiitv:
Fairborn Rr3utticipal Coszrt Case £'t't..B 330 12-10 rtr: efit for Domestic Violence (State of O1-1 vs Kee5ha E3ar'ion)
Greene County - Case 201 ^ DR 0207 Divorce (Me vs Her)
Greene C"ount} - t.;'ase 2013 ljv o 1{)3 Domestic VEolence {Hcr vs Mc)
Gre, rie County -- Case 2013 DV 0196 Domestic Vio?ence (Me vs Her)
V ery RCspectfU.l li'.
^ _.. _ .^._
Doup-las C. Barton
!^^%ar wick Piaec
I= atrborrt. OFI 4 5324
{513} 508=7515
ktt5dx@laotn,ail.vor<.^
,
,
%,,.^f/'`'c
'c
^`^h,^F:^`^iE«^. s^^o da
.....,
Pe. " l^n2tru (gimu ,
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
cascipLsNaRv cauNSKt 250 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 325
SCO7"-i J. DREXEL COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215•7411
(614) 461-0256
A55iSTAN't D}SC4PLIN61R1' COUNSEL
STACY SOLOCHEK BECKMAN
MICHELLE R. SOWMAN
BRUCE T. DAVIS
KAREN N. OSMOND
(:ATf-1ERiNE M. RUSSO
DONALD M. SCFiE.L"TL
A;v'..Y C. S':"CIiNE
AUDREY E. VARWIG
cN1EN AS51sThN7 D15Cia' INAE2Y LOUNSEt FAX (614) 461-7205
JOSEPH M. CALtG€tiR; 1-800u589-5256
March 3. 21014
^^ R-SQN,'^^ AN-kC f^TNFID^fii ^.1..
i.f^+ut.e':Ct4 ^, ^^3lit3f[
4-17 Nka;vvick Place
i`alJ'bt AI3. 01T 4
' 5 I2"1
B.i vat'{ Kelly Pe11ick. Esq.
ODC File }i4-00=44
Dea= 'Ni3°. Barion;
. ,,4. ' a f ^.. Y { ,.
n l? C713i` v$tlct. on .'ta^^^^l'}% ^. 14•:.
a^i^
Pen Pet^rc"^
i ck
zerC'4^''efA' i
^^ Otli` -ii:z;^iZ'ii,f; t"^.ctT°C^ipY ^`^t£C)?"T3.e`v
^
^
f
Please be ac^^^is^ci ^1^at the a$4t?1orit-^ c^i tn.i: office is limite d t^ investigating %^11^.sa^f^^t
`
_1 fi1C I a?tf .'sol^,$1C3i15 of ti1C C7C^t'. CS3. -.k'i01t SSIUZ7.s`^..^. .^Jiesp4^11^^'s^17^1 ^' $^l)^ ^^11Ct +"^.41^C S of
73,SsC 31
^ 3^c ^^i^7ka4 ^ 43^2C^1a..; at1^ $hc CUde C?i Ji.idICial CCt: dJC$ b4' atiolll'.yS a?1 ! jUdge5. Ih er 0
Tli '
b'iC?%a2:l.C)Tls ;)$ 5ue%1fiC' YLIlC'S { Gvw'`if5a3g the conduct i?4 a$f:(II"'t"tevs and" ji?C'tgt:st>a1't bi adCIt"eSSeZ' C?\
.2is 0141'3'4C:.
Y o14s grtevaCls;e raises Ie yal Is5$c,5 i1.^ whether a.(?11$? ntlwi7cC.. was properly cTTa1:ICed.,
fCJI° t.'.t)Iltlili.l.t:3:l.C ) that I'111.35t
wi4$hC< '_3". ):'i17d" GYopti^ --Y3¢e?'e^'^,t G2ii 2r.¢?p2d2'c̀1T3L 'bt' fiiiS3.g a 1'I.1C.1tIo11
'.S':
^
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^
.
-
.
.
.
.
if°a court determines, that N'Ir: Pe7G=ck filed al impz^perimc.^tion or impr4per1v en$e,-ec!t an
d}}pf;a,^.t'zC ' in a case. the ^.Citiit 221c^? sai'ICt1i}I1 ^'1!^$^> :,"d you may Tc ^tle10Li1 ^i ti?'s^12C^. xC)Y. ti7c
cit3f ,1T't: il$ii)2=ed i"°^,S()i't; aTid fC?i' the c; '' 'eiiiti?. ^iQ'.Vw^'^,i', ^ C?Lli a.i iC ^. al (. is C^:i.s122FSSeC^ and C1112' ii^c'
C)fl $hiti 131i3.$?°i i.:s C;3.CiSeCi.
*:
u ny C . Stcne
Assi:;tant Disciplitaaty C 0z?n.se1
, ^ <. ; ,
J
^^C' S.•r^ t^•
^,
cc: Bi'vaT3" PeT11L'k.
'ESq.
.,
,,,<^
r"'
^f" %
`,: r '
.
.
j _.::..;. .
! ^ .
FAIRBORN MUNICIPAL GOUR-i'
GREENE COUNTY, OHIO
State of Ohio ,2se No. `Z
v.
A
J UDGMENT ENTRY
^
Def•enda,i
. :^- -v,.
_.;
^-^
-:. --^
- __--------------- - _ _ ^- :: ; ^ ^..;^ ,
Defendant being before the Gouri was informed of the nature of t,-ie chargp-, the maximum pena
the plea. The Court hereby makes the finding of GJ €L1^' ar;d orders sentence as follows based
cf circurr,stances and the fr^ilcL^ing PLEA;
GUILTY NO CONTEST
ta the offenve 0, c
CHARGED:..__.Y-AMENaED Tt^._ - ^.^ ^^^u^^^•,c ^ ^'^i V^^_ _ __
Offense c}i
Offense of
Offense of
is dismissed with without Court Gosts,
is dismissed with without Court Gcsts,
is dismissed with without Court Costs.
Pay a fine in the a;noi^nt of
C^C^ ^^ . __ P€us Court cast^. Suspend of ti°ie fine.
Defendant is ordered to report to the arresting Agency within 24 hours to be fingerprinted if not already
fingerprinted on fhts charge.
days,
Swntenced to _^ _ ^... days of Jail. No Good time. Credit for
Concurrent Consecutive
Report to the Greene County Jail on fGr_ days.
Remanded today for _ day&
House Arrest for days -------- with alcohol monitor _ with work rea;ase,
..t
^,. ..,
Suspend days of Jail on these fol€cwing conditions:
No future similar violations for --- year(s).
Community Control for up to __ vear(s)._-_ Supe;visud Unsu; errised
Assessment for drug and/cr alcohol and follow-up treatment,
Assessment for Mental Health and follow-up ireatmeni. -.. SLabmii Form
Pay Restitution €r, the amour;f of
^^ Goad Def^m,fror ^rcr yn ar3.
Comp€cte r__.___- hours of Community Serv€ce.
^ ^ ^^4d L?from
Banned
for -_year(s),
Driver's License Susper3ded for --- rncnths. i;ffective ALS termir,ated
,-- -- Granted Driving Permit pur Gourt standard if insured. .._- restricted plates ira'ter;ock, device required.
;"r•1e Clerk shall Serve 'De€endant with a ccPy of this Enfry on this date.
J' i ge ....._....4..w..e....-.-..-.,._..^...._..---..-.-.-....._-»...^.....__-
,r, ,,,... r
'^f.''^•'
:, ^ ,'^
40 .',
0f'_ ^ 5 y 1 ^ ^ f'.^ r `/
U
<.^r..!/
"c
r
THIS IS A FEN ALAr f?EAI-ABI E OR...T)ER
d^
h^^
7
i
i
•,
^
u
;r -
e
ti
4 1 : ^+
(l
'
.
.
.,.
.
.
1N II'iE C^^^^ONPLEAS COURT OF GREEINTE COUNTY, OHIO
DfV1SIO-Nl OF DO-NlE5TIC RELATIONS
DOUGALS C. B^.^TONT
Plaintiff,
CASE NO, 13DR207
Judge J. l'imothy Carnpbell, sitting by
assignment.
_vs-
Final Judg-pn^t a-qd Decree of
Divorce. F1NAL APPEMAlflLE
ORDER
K.i:FSHA.A. BARTON
Defendant.
This matter camebef.Qre the Court on this 6:h day of'.Turie, 2014, this i.8^' da.y of
^.
J u^.y, ^.: 0 ^.4, 2^n^f tk°^:s :i i "` c^.av o f A ug u.s€, 2014 ul-pcsza ti°ie C ornp'i ai:t 0 f th c P 1 aI n^i ff fo r
divorce and the counterclaim of the Defendant for divorce and for further hea: ings for
contempt and attomyv'a fees and di:, Court ftrzds from the evidence that both the Plaintiff
and Defendant had bsedn residents of the State of Ohio for six months before fil`zn^ and
residents of Greene Co-tauty for r3i.nwty days before filing; that the partbes were mKir:-ied at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base on June 33, 2012; that no chitdr^^i have been bam the
issiie of the rna.riage; that the Defendant is not cumnfly pregnant; that the parties are
y"^ f
s r
F
r
F ^ itiJ
^^
[
^ ^^ .. _4 <r.-s+ {
I
_...^
^.........w.--.__^_._._^..^...--
;^^
i
1
L 3
r^ 0I y^
r-,nc-^ti'c fZ.fations Cousf
r
d A T O ^^
.
^i
2/
i F'
^!
`..., .1 ' ` ',^ #'
^ .,t
3,
:.✓
irzcors-a.patiT^^e with oric another wb-ich neiTher pariy derties; that each party has been
properly senred and that the Court has jurisdietion of 0.ie cause of action and the parti:Ls
1
hereto.
`' ^^f ifo,*U" . ^ {
f^ t .,... , r •!=S
._.4_ r r +. / , ± . ....,,•... ..
%r•, of fior r. .
'.i ^^^s...^ ^arr../c^, ,a.?
^,r^.^ . ` G^
l.
/.•..;
TBER.^FORE, it i., ordered, adjudged and decreed that each par.:y is gr^^^ed a
divorce fror2 the other on the grounds of incompatibility and the- marriage co-atzac€
betweerr them is hereb-y dissolved and both parties ar- released L-Qar its obligations.
Since Ca`^.e parties are unable to csgee on ?.;1J division o^th-ei:. property, the Court
will divide same in accordance with -the tysttsnor^y and evidencea
Pr^_ ^u.^t.,i.^ Ar^emqr^€
On April 7, 2014, in: a pz-e-tr al conference, the C;otirt was first made aware of the
existence of a Pre--Nupt.iaI Agreem czit beiwe^-_n the paAies dated July 2, 2012, the day
bwfore the parties' marfiage. Since both paries had other counsel represcirting them in
this divorce, prior fcs their current counsel, curren.t counsel became aware of its existence
when they received tioc-ainents froni prior cotinsel. Neith€:r pa-dy pled thePre-?vi^ptia1
Agreement or refez^.yd to it zn the piead3ngs =tzl on May 29, 2014, Plaintiff requested
leave to f'.a^e a reply to Defendant's counterclaim, wh6rh leave w&s granted, and Plaintiff
, ...,,.,.,.,
attached a copy to the reply. ^e Agreement calls for t`s^^ed^dlee'wbich are tki be
attached but they are not attached arLd F7either party clai.rrfs to have them. PIai.n-tiff -nova
Gross v Gross,
11 Ohio St.3d
at 105, also
f
,,
claims the Prc;--lNup^ia:i. Agreernerz.t should be rorrrxd valid and criforc^ed wl^.i1e the
Vanderbilt,
Lei"ei}ciatit contends it should not.
-whzle the testijrzany of the parties indicates CQat alf requirernent.s for avalid. and
CD
enfbrceah^e Pre-Nuptial Agreement wem probably met, the fact that the scheczsait-, are
missing and no one can pro.3.uce them makes enforcement of such an incornpiete
Page 2 of 9
CD
co
'4^,; f.,"';°p;^
, r^.:; , . .
,,,; ^^ ,r^:.,,^,,,, ;v.
;
,,,,s , ,° , a
i , . # ^: ^
s,,
"ezn.ent to be unconscionable and oor^sequentiy unenforceable. Therefore, the Court ;
... ..
will not considor the pusported PrerNuptiai Agreemont:
..^a"Fy;
.,;f:d
Real Estate
Foch p,a.ity owzsed their owaq real estate prio-r- to their marr,"age. Douglas Barton
will retain tae re-zd estate located at and commonly known as 437 Wa.TvAck Place,
i^airborn, Ohio 453:24 and w-Il pay the indebtedness thereon and save Keesha Barton
ha-Tmless.
Keesiia Ba.rtan will retain the real estate located at and commonly known as 23522,
Bernard, Fairbom, Ohio 45324 and will pdy, the iaidebfedness thereon and save Doug1^.^s
Barton narriiiessv
'Motor vehicles
Keesh.a Barton will retain the 2013 Acura TSX autoinobilo which is titiod in her
rian-ie and pay the inciohtedneJs thereors and save Dauglas Barrton bar-miess there$com_
Do^glass ^:3a:z-ton will rei4:irs the 2006F250 truck titled in his name and pay the
indebtedness thereon and save K.ee:;taa Barton fiherefrom_ Douglas Barton shall retain -the
20z0 Ha:°ley Dx>;dsox^ nnotorcy*`Iu' and the 2005 1U, Tt?ylialer^V and pay the
G fs,.; 5r,..s., or, f, ...,..
,
iriciebtedness thereon and save Keestia B%zrton hmnless therefrozn.
Upon prc3of, fmnished to Keesha Barton by Douglas
.^"
on the 2005 KZ Toyhauler RV has ibeen paid; or upon proof that Dou^ias Barton has
zefw-an^ed the 2E305 KZ, To} hauier RV so ?haz Keesha Barton is no longer obligated on
the loan oxi the 2005 KZ To; haiiler; then Keesha Barton will transf^i- the tit4o to ttic 1 999
Cn
CD
t-0
Barton and he siiali retain sa.rne irec fi•om all claims of Keesha
^:^ ;:;; F 5 . ^..., ^ a
^ 2^%r„^f^.. . ^.,ir`^f.
f` rrf,
„ ./
Page 3 of 9
^-.f, ro^r:
.'.^.,d'4.:.:^: ^%a ± 6,:/`'
Barton. 'l-his vehicle was originally 13oug1as Bartort's but tm.nsferred to Keesha Barton as
security for her signing on ffie indebtedness on the 2005 KZ Toyhauler RV.
Retirement Plans
Both parties have retirement plans cam-ed prior to their maa-riage. Douglas ^arton,
hass a Fidelity 40 l: (^) a-nd a Thrift Savinggs Plan. Keesha Barton has a':Chraf^ Savings Plan,
and i£she completes twenty year's of service in the Air Force, she will receive a pension
fi-^nn Federal Errglslc?yeesR.etiru#li"r,.at S.:;:fsric,e (FEs .S)_
Si.^ce the bulk of any retirement benefits -wre.^ earned or acs;-winu1ated prior to the
parties' marr.zage; and from the date of their max-riage to the dar.e of separatio-,, is barely
over one year, the ^^iirt finds it would be inequitable to divide any portion of the parties'
Pensions or rettrerffieait Prrsgrams.
Consequently, the Court orciers that each parcy shall retai..^ any and all interest in
t1ie'ss ow-n pension or retirem- ent prog-rams free ftoirt aIl clairr,s oil"the other.
Housthold-Cj-qods a.nd f €tMishipgs
Eac1^ party had hausebold goocl.s and ftmnishin^s prior to their rna.rria^e;, Some of
both parties' sc-para:te prarerty are located at #Iie property ov.rned by the other. 'I'he parties
resided ir, the rea.1 estate owt^ed by Keesha A. Barton as thc rnar-ital prernisus ciuri.ng t1?eir
short mar-riage anci. sorne of each parbf 's separate property is located at, the other party's
separate residence.
Using Ptaintzffs Exhibit 12, as the list for ptuposes of division, Keesha I3a.r^on is
M
^
awarded the foIloNking items ot^ that list, free fToan all claims <if Douglas C. Barton:
,..,... ........ .......... ..^,,.._ ._.__.,. .,..
Column A, Item fi3urr^bers 16, 17i 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45g 46, §1Y 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and
,_.._.:.a;^...n.,.^. .............._.._.._n„^...__,..,_.^.a..,u,.._.._..___,^
^
59. All other iier-is in Catum A of r la.intifrs Exhibit 12 shall t-e the sole and exclusive
^
RE
,!:AiAre to fr,ifo W ^2er./.e,sl,.r,i n.J^^^^. .^.f.k^re;f,t✓ e^^t
1ye 4 of 9
' ',^', . .
nS Sl c .
5 ^,£!
f^
"%t"
Brief
. e.l':
^r , f G:'^•✓ '. ^n^.'l`•.,."^• .
f . S"'
.
^'^! ^' ^^ ! j'% `^i
+r: fl,
"../ ' ,%
. 4..y
4%
,7
/
it, -f 2/ ,
r ''^ . .,/
,_, „
,^.^a ,.; ,,,,
/ f
.ir,^ `0.
±^
# k4%.^i+'fa ^
^.
:%
propealy of Dotzglas C. Barton, fc-ee fi-orn all vlairas af'Ir'_ee,sia. l3putoxz. Any bcau:sehvlc^
^^ods- aricl i'umishirigs not listed on F'las.iatiff-'s E^Wbit I/12 swi be the sole and exclusive
prc>pert-f of the party in POases`ian Of-tha't item at the tilarig date of this decree, free from
all claims of tize other.
^ :Fk: a$-r
F3^#US-upp€)Lv
5YCiM
:. Ap p ',,.y,@,f :Br.'el^^ for
;r .,.^^^ > Y........_.....^,....,,............R,.,.,...,,.^,,H..^..._..,....,.,
The Defencia..^t clahns she is entitled tospousai stippa^ ^iaiming Plaintiff caused
her ts.^ lose a prornotion as a result of Plaintiff contacting her supe-rior Aic,ers aiid filing a
congressional complaint against i:ieT_
....^..1,...-..,
. ^... ................ x.,....,.
. ..a,.o,.. ..,....4..
.._..____K'."n°:5'cy. )n fc°4 Domea,Uv' 'f f'^y.«s ±u^._,
'I'be Plaintiff is employed by JoliTison Coiitxols eeird:n.g $82,t700o041 iri 2013 pIus.
$7,70ti40f3 from 7JSAF Reser-es in 2013, Defendant is employed by the United States Air
Force arzd earned approxirzzateif $40,50fi.00 zr 20 i>; plus housilig al^owan€;e, bringing
her 20 13 income tc, approxitztafely $63q00t3.0Q, for an income differential of
approximateiy S27,000_00 in favor of the Plaintiff. `il?e Court has considered all of ti^e
...,, ,^......
. ....,... ^./. e;^,^'Z
.SfA\ f(i)(T r^ .^••••.....>....
fatrito?3 in L.J_.L'S...i., 3 !U5^
f .,iy i . f,.t.^fyr
`r r 'ri
a)(rrx)$and f-iSrtiaerbased upon the
2013) and:4-P-la^mt^^'^ ^a^ur^ Ko ..c^iii't'r-i-b"ute- . t-o ^^e-ri^W-^f the parties d-os^i-ig their
...._,..w......^..,..,....^ ...........................,._....__....,.,..,^ .,...u.._..............^....._..,.._.......^;
one year ma.^tage, the Ce^t fmds ilat sgousai support i:s apprrpn^ate
azid
^^Swrr^ffFF^r F ^ l^.i
a-^-iards the Defendant $S00.00 per ^iorth for a peziod ofiwe1ve mon&i5
^ ^?if ^ ^fl s S^i.%t
4; by
^^u !}'"'='P't:,
, ".rs..l . ,.,^,
thi:rt; days after the filing of the decree a-f divorce and payable eacb month thereaftter for
friE'1: a/! or
^the ^'csr the twelve ni€^s-t^. ^is^^.. I`h^.e spa.-ai^^ support ^zli be ,paid by ^hc Plaintiff
through gtie ^"^efenda.ntgs a:tto^'^ey in order to avoid violating the civil protection Ordeas.
The Court dc^e-, not retain contirzuing jurisdiction over Y:i:e issue of spousal support.
^
; ^ ,,... ._. ^ ..^,,._..,..
A;. S^ "^' %! t}Sxff•^i
'! ;i %.<^.1'.
„i^i /%, 2E',s
*e , ... ^^^'f^^:✓£
}f' .
^
S ri,
^^^^ 5 of 9
RE1,L„^ \T0R
a. ^ , ,,, , ;,. r,.^,
`;.,,f^ %"% # ;;^ I _ =,.f' `
Chegki^g ^^ Saving s ^^^^^j^
Each party shall retain their own checkan^^^.nt^ savings accounts free from aI1.
claims of the other party.
.$^ebts
Other than the debt owed on the 2005 KZ Toy^auier RV, w1:ich is tkic oblzgaiiotz
of Dougla.:, Barton, each party will pay the indebtedness in their name and save the other
^^ ^^^z.^^ ^ ^ir" ,`ss::
` #
p.arty h;^r^ess t^,i re^.^.
^'i <c%r'!clf^! +^`,'..fr s.iru
'fnC f'
zaW_._.
c%.;p-,";,; i,,t., :;f-f,tN
^^;.,..__. ....;;.,_..._.::`;.' :..:.._^,...,,.k...s
Both parties allege the other caused dwriagc tc, lbeir pr^-marital real estate a.rkd!€i<personal property. The C^tirt finds that neither party has si-t.stained the burden of proof to
demonstrate the type of damage or the am-owats. Cons^querx^^y the Court denies that
claim as io both pa-c'aes. Likewise the Plaintiff claims 1-ie is owed for work- he performed
on Defendant's residence while they were living there as a marital residence, yet lic has
no clccunierzts tr; back up the work iie claarr^s hc per-fQrned. The evidence also
d€;rnca-nstrates he did not cor!tibute to the tnorf:gage or hou-se}iotd expenses dur"ng this,
fijrze. As a result the Cow: ^^^^^,,; the Plairztiff's cl-aims for payment for work ^iformed
e
on D^,°fenddnt s
s re^I es^:^
u.
-
x ..
cunt£
.,., mlg
.,
At the fmal divorce .^eariisg on June 6, 2014, the Couft heard testimony ors a
,
.,.,,. .....................1.
contempt motion filed by the 13efendant on Arjril 24, 2014 in six branches and hea-r^
Defendant's July 9, 2014 zr^oti-on for contempt 'na seven branches on August 11, 2014.
As to the motion filed on Apri124, 2014, ihd, Cflanrt overrules Branch I as the
U's
wc^tu-t's order does nxit specifically address paying debts by deposit in a joint account.
, ,..,,..,
;,.,,
;^,ar^.,
f. ,,^^i;
3,.,^
. o ^,r. ^..t^,
Page 6 of 9
fr. ,-, ^^f
^:. %>a^"€; y;; , ` D '
1rs -ui^Nv Ofthe Coart'^ rulirzgs in this decree, -Branches 11, a1f, and IV are woot. In
view ^f the iestimony r.ha.^ both parties are filing separate inconle iax retzrns, Branch V is
moot. In view of the Court addressing attorney's fees herciii, Brfir^ch VI is moot
Defendant's m- otiorz fiaerl on April 24. 20 14 is overruled in its ctitirety.
On ^-'^.ugw-t 11, 20 14, the Court ^eard evicieric^ of De^en.dant's r,00tion fi)r
c;onLemp^ fiIed on July 9, 2014, ip- seven b^-^chcs_ B:-auches I arzd. 11 allsage the :Plaintiff
violated pam&-,-T,^i 4 of the Ccaii.^-f's order of Au;tx^,^t 13, 2014 i;T, ,^an.r;e-ilina Defendant's
dental in::-.ura.azce and cancelling ber as a beneficiary on aii insurance policy.
Br$-.cbes Tll and IV allege the Plaintiff vioiatcd paragraph 7 of #fie same order
regarding removing property from tie rnax:iW residence. The Court fmds the Plaintiff in
contempt on Brancbes Ian.d 11, for canc.e31ir^g dental icwrance and cancelling Defendant
as a bcnc:icia.ry but imposes no penalty therefore as the Defendant was ziot ?a^^d
thereby.
I'hc Court docs.nrst find the PlaintziT in contempt re^arding Branches IrT and ^' as
the property, iin q7a;st?oti was iivt at the z-nari.tal prcrnises as the o.rder so specifies. fn vicNv
Ati.cmq '..
.
.
.
.
...
...
..
3^''^`s .
i
.
..
.
"5%3/'%
•.1
Ln
.
.
,
e
{ iz,€, fr f<< 4
of ti}.e C:ourt°s orders herein, Br.wi€i^^s V, V]; artd VII are mootA
k^dG.i
.i.r^
s ....
fi;
^1'^^.,^f
}
,_..,.,.....^..,^..^....,...^,r.S-
^^ July 18, 2014, the Court caiiductcd a heap.'ng on Defimdant's claim to be
awarcied attornc^^'s z^;es ^.rc^xn ^^F^e Plair^sif^. ^3bviouslw= t^.ere is a history of liostility
becween the parties si.:ice the marriage breakw^p which involved nunicrous court fiizngs,
law enforcement invoi^eme-nt, and botli parties havi.rig rntiliiple legal r.'elnreseiitatioais for a
.^,.°
CD
^
variety of legal proceedings. Defin€iam is requesting reimbursement of $22,894.60 in
cn
^ ^,,,' ^ ,^,,,^ ,
je1.... yo : ^^
^ z,.^` a , ^^o.^ ^
Page 7 of 9
,^„ ^ . „ .
; ^r.o,F,
^..
^^^,,,,; It;¢"'
s.../ ^ . ^.: s».
atiorriey fees for four different coumets. Plaintiff bas also had different counsel for
di:.ff-erLnt proceedings,
°tlie Coairi has aiready discussed some of the factors that would ^w, corisiderecl %-o.
determining whelher or riot to award a.ttomey fees (i.e. the disparity of income; the short
l€:i3g1i of the max.-riage). The co3nplaint in this case was fi^ed A.ugtLst 16, 2013 and is
^^el-y pending for one vear and yet Defendant has expended over $20,000.00 for fot7r
differurii attomey,s iai a cw£ of a one year .iia:re-iage with rso i.riinor children anca partaes
with ttaeir own separate assets. Alile the Plaintiff may bear some responsibility for the
Defendant ?iavzrzg to expend this much in legal fees, he certainly ca.r3uot be €iae only
re:ason Lhe Defendaxa.€ 'had to c;han^e lawyers so ^:cec^^.tiptly. However the testimony and
evidence discloses that his acsioiis regarding hhis changing i.xisurance situations d:g the
pendency oft.tiis action and his other actiom pla-yed a significant role i-n farcing the
Defendant to resai't to additional c^uft action zra tfiis case.
A-fter hearing expert test%rnotiy the Court considers whether or not the attorney
fees are reasor^abi° after corisiderinlc, ttic -tiriie and labor requiz`e(i to litigate the va:se and
prepare for trzal. It also considers the ct:^s"Lomary feeschar ;e for the co^^.r^:^.^ity the
divorce action is fikd; in and the experience of the attaAmeyk. After considering the
attorney`s expertise, iii^ ^ime,1abor snvolved, and the Plaintiff's ability to pay the fees,
the Court fmds th-at tiie Defendant is cntztled to a reasonable award of srsrrs.e attorney's
fees from the Plaintiff in the tota1 amo-Luit of $4,540>00 to be paid within 90 days f-ram
the fi1ing of -the decree. The fees will he paid throu&, DcfendanVs attomey to avoid
7:%..^
ri
CD
°e
._
^•i.t S ^
^ ^ ,..e•..r
rs
^:{_
fl, it!
^^`^^' ^J^y^
•.i•.l
:Ya
^ .,fc-^ w
^
r ^'
^
^^
^
^
th iv
.'Siie
.
"i€.^,rh
7
i
a; .
_:S,vanan
s v Sxfarrsarr, 48 Ohio A.j;p,2d 85
^ .^ ^ j ^
.^,f^r^T
.r%.J
t ^
J?f^."^'^Ea f?
r: wt y..
!e''.r'r
. '.rJ;
. ^^%''f
.
S a ^,r^;l^-/^ r^F3
. •f., ^.
Page 8 of 9
r c..,, .y r^ ...f ^ ^^
^`i : E,.r''. , r.^ 'a
v""i^ ^ ''S5• ' ,,, ,;
^.^..^^` #:;`,^^^^^
^^r
violating any remair°^zng, civil protection orders. Since there is no need for fm-ier delay,
this maybe ^ fina$ appeaiabI^ order.
I`f IS SO ^^ERF-D.
I
i
Serva:.j^; c.r Capy ^pon:
Charles W. jklorrison
1105 Wilmington Avenue
Dr.^-j-S.or.y Ohio 45420
Chaz-les W. Slicer, TTT
I I 1Wesr First Stree^ Ste. 5 l f^
Dayton, Uliio 454£32
Judge J. "I'zz^^othv Car-zpveIl
cio G:rtane Ccruraiy Domest;c Relations Court
Clerk or Assimment Commissi:cTier
^
^
^
Page9 Qf9
^
^ f ,, .,..,,... ;r
„,,._
^'^ ^ ;^. ?,.,%%. , 4,^ ^ '^
F ";%,.,,.,z„ ,,;,,..5
,.1 'a, ^ ., . .7 G ^i %'^ . :
^^/^ X^^ ^f ^ Y