X hits on this document

36 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

14 / 15

{¶ 36}

“2.

[Appellants]

and

Nick

Brdar

were

improperly

joined

as

defendants. A quit claim deed had given all of Nick Brdar’s rights to Robert A.

Brdar. Nick Brdar was an unnecessary party to the lawsuit.”

{¶ 37} “3. [Deutsche Bank] and the court improperly interpreted the use of

judicial process and procedure. * * * [Deutsche Bank] had no standing to sue

Ingle on April 10, 2008. * * *.”

{¶ 38} “4. [Deutsche Bank] used wrong or improper application of statutory

and case law.”

{¶ 39} “5. [Deutsche Bank] and/or the court improperly denied [Robert

Brdar’s] and/or Ingle’s right(s), title(s) and interest(s) in the property * * *.”

{¶ 40} “6. [Deutsche Bank] made improper service on [appellants]. * * *.”

{¶ 41} “7. [Deutsche Bank] and the court were both involved with improper

motion resolution. * * *.”

{¶ 42} “8. [Deutsche Bank] never showed up for their first default hearing

but attorney Susan Mandryk did. * * * [Deutsche Bank] improperly used

counsel.”

{¶ 43} “9. Material issues and/or facts were not addressed or decided

properly by the court. [Appellants] never got [Deutsche Bank’s] motion for

summary judgment. Therefore, [appellants] could not timely answer said motion.

Ingle never received the magistrate’s decision. [Deutsche Bank’s] memorandum

Document info
Document views36
Page views36
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 02:14:10 UTC 2016
Pages15
Paragraphs317
Words3025

Comments