GEAUGA COUNTY TREASURER CHRISTOPHER P. … ... I do not accept the liability ... benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement. ... This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CHRISTOPHER P. HITCHCOCKTREASURER OF GEAUGA COUNTY,OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Vs.

ARTHUR E. SEGEDY, JR., et al.,

Defendants,

ALLEN E. SEGEDY,

Defendant-Appellant,

On Appeal from the GeaugaCounty Court of Appeals,Eleventh Appellate District

Court of AppealsCase No. 2009-G-2907

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPELLANT ALLEN E. SEGEDY

Allen E. Segedy7707 Country LaneChagrin Falls, Ohio 44023(440) 543-9757without prejudiceUniform Commercial Code 1-207 and 1-103without Attorneywith Guardian Ad Litemwith disabilities

APPELLANT, Allen E. Segedyin pro ner, sui juris (NOT PRO SE)

Bridey Matheney, Esq. (Attorney for Plaintiff)Assistant Prosecuting Attorney231 Main Street, 31a FloorChardon, OH 44024

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES,CHRISTOPHER P. HITCHCOCKGEAUGA COUNTY TREASURER

TABLE OF CONTENTSPaee

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIALCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION .................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ........ ....................... ....................... 4

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ..................................... 7

Proposition of Law No. I ....................................................................... 7

Proposition of Law No. II . ........................ ............................................. 8

Proposition of Law No. III ...................................................................... 8

CONCLUSI ON . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. ... .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . ... ... . .. .. . . . . 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................... 10

APPENDIX Appx. Page

Opinion of the Geauga County Court of Appeals(Aug. 10, 2009) Received August 31, 2009 ................................................. I

Judgment Entry of the Geauga County Court of Appeals(Aug. 10, 2009) Received August 31, 2009 ................................................. 5

Affidavit ... .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. ...... 6

Affidavit of Indigency . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .... 7

TABLE OF AU'rHORITIESPaee

CASES

See Cleveland Trust Company v. Pomeroy (Cuyahoga Cty. 1961), 177 N.E. 2d 410, 412...... 7

F.d Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Society Nat'1 Bank (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 433, 442 .................. 8

Ilopkins v. Cleveland "frust Co. (1955), 163 Ohio St. 539 ........................................... 8

Monroe v. Shivers (Morgan Cty. 1927), 29 Ohio App, 199, 11 ..................................... 9

Strock v. Pressnell (1988) 38 Ohio St. 3d, 207.216 ..........................................:........ 8

Tracey v. Sacket (1852) 1 Ohio St. 54, 60 .............................................................. 9

Willis v. Baker (1906), 75 Ohio St. 291, 203 .......................................................... 9

CONSTITUTIONAI, PROVISIONS• STATUTES:

Ohio Constitution, Section ..............................................................................Ohio Constitution, Section . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ..... . . . .. . .. .. . ...R.C. ................................................................................................R.C . .....................................................................................................R.C . ......................................................................................................R.C. Chapter 2721 ...................................................................................... 7, 8R.C . ......................................................................................................R.C. 2721.2 ................................................................................................R.C . ..................................................................................................R.C . .....................................................................................................

ORCP/FRCP 12 ............................................................................................. 2

ORCP 12(A) ............ ........................ .......... .............. ........................... .......... 2

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Uniform Commercial Code 1-103 ......................................................................... 2

Unifomi Connnercial Code at 1-207 .......................................:.............................. 2, 3

COMMON LAW ........................................................................................... 3

Notice of De6ciency ... .. ..... .. . .. ... ... .. .... . .. ..... .... .. ..... ..... .. ... .. ..... ..... ....... ..... .... .. .. 2

ii

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OFPUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND

INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL OUESTION

This cause presents two critical issues for the public citizens in Ohio: (1) whether a Court of

Appeals is allowed to dismiss an appeal when a defendant has not been allowed his constitutional

rights, to a hearing, to state that the lower court does not have jurisdiction to hear said case as Plaintiff

never answered Notice of Deficiencies served on Geauga County offices not answering within 28 days.

By its ruling the time (tolls) as the court sees it can ignore the facts.

We liave not injured parties as required to go to court.

We have no contract between Segedy with Geauga County to pay property taxes, (Segedy has

in past paid taxes, unknown he didn't have to). Segedy pays sales taxes and income (state/federal)

taxes when required. They urgently need correction by this court.

The implications of the decision of the court of appeals affect every court in Ohio, and touch

the lives of tens of thousands of citizens in the state. The public's interest in the orderly operation. of

government courts is profoundly affected when courts run against stated time rules to benefit its county

elective officers. Such a rule would sabotage the integrity of government courts, and undermine the

fundamental principle that the rule of law constrains governments as well as citizens. Similarly, the

public interest is affected if the plain meaning of a statute duty adopted by the Generally Assembly can

be judicially altered to subvert the legislature's intent that the courts of Ohio throughout the state be

controlled by certain uniform principles as meets the county needs.

Apart from the Geauga County considerations, which make this case one of great public

interest, the decision of the court of appeals has broad general significance. Thousands and thousands

of citizens of Ohio are landowners. Thus counties are not allowed to do what it takes to win against a

time-honored process by which citizens mutually agree on matters that jointly affect them.

]

The decision of the court of appeals sets a precedent that would exclude an entire subject matter

(28 days) to answer.

The judgment of the court of appeals has great general significance also because it undermines

the severely compromised current case law permitting counties to circumvent their bending of rules for

their betterment. If a court does not have jurisdiction over certain matters, one cannot hear the case.

Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hence, Plaintiff

did not respond to Notice of Deficiency received 3/17/09 at their office sent by regular mail 3/16/09

and did not respond Complaint: Notice of Deficiency.

In state court, answers to complaints are due within 28 davs after service of summons and

complaint. ORCP 12(A) as in this case Notice of Deficiency mailed 3/16/09. Failure to State a Claim

upon which Relief can be Granted ORCP/FRCP12. COPY included henceforth:

RE: Notice of Deficiency

SEGEDY IS MAKING A VALID RESERVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMON

LAW THROUGH THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AT 1-207 AND 1-103. THUS,

SEGEDY REQUESTED THAT THE COUNTY PRODUCE THE INURED PERSON, DAMAGED

PARTY, WHO HAS FILED A VERIFIED COMPLAINT. SEGEDY QUESTIONS THIS NOTICE

SINCE HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES. SEGEDY QUESTIONS

JURISDICTION UNDER WHAT LAW.

I received your Notice of Deficiency. Segedy wants to use: the Uniform Commercial Code to

dishonor it. Segedy states: that he is among the national citizenry of continental United States and

Segedy is a non-resident alien to the federal United States. Segedy never lived in a federal territory

and only had any income from the federal United States while under Federal Conscription.

Furthermore, Segedy cannot be required to file or pay taxes under the compelled benefit of using the

2

Federal Reserve Notes, because Segedy has reserved his rights under the Common Law through the

Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.

Segedy has not been able to find out that no state legislature has met to lawfixlly change the

abbreviation of the state from its old abbreviation to the new.

What does Segedy understand the meaning of without prejudice Uniform Commercial Code 1-

207, in connection with Segedy's signature: The use of Without prejudice Uniform Commercial Code

1-207 in connection with my signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right NOT TO

BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM under any contract I did not enter into KNOWINGLY,

VOLUNTARILY, and INTENTIONALLY. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated

with the compelled benefit of any UN-REVEALED CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL

AGREEMENT.

Under the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and

intentionally, by both parties or it can be declared void and unenforceable. Segedy is claiming the

right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that he did not enter into knowingly,

voluntarily and intentionally. And Segedy does not accept the liability associated with the compelled

benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement.

The compelled bene6t is the privilege to use Federal Reserve Notes to discharge Segedy's

debts with limited liability rather than to pay Segedy's debts with silver coins. It is a compelled

benefit, because there are no silver coins in circulation. Segedy has to eat, and Segedy can only buy

food with a medium of exchange provided by the government. Segedy is not allowed to print his own

money, so Segedy is compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed

commercial agreement. Segedy had made a valid, timely and explicit reservation of Segedy's rights

under Uniform Commercial Code 1-207, and Segedy is simply exercising this benefit rendered by

3

government, Segedy will not be obligated, under an implied agreement to obey every statue, ordinance

and regulation passed by government, at all levels - federal, state and local.

Allen E. Segedy was appointed a Guardian ad litem by the Court of Common Pleas but not an

attomey. Segedy is with disabilities and is on medication under doctor's care, hence has diminished

capabilities.

To promote the purposes and preserve the integrity of the court system to assure uniform

application of the Law, to promote orderly and constructive rule between citizens and their county rule,

and to remove impediments of favoritism this court must grant jurisdiction to hear this case and review

the erroneous and dangerous decision of the court of appeals and

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Segedy received Decision and Order entered Mar 10, 2009 from Ohio Board of Tax Appeals

Case Nos. 2008-V-1672, 2008-V-1673, 2008-V-1674.

Christopher P. Hitchcock filed Case No. F000356 in the Geauga County Court on March 27,

2009.

Defendant Segedy filed (four) Notice of Deficiencies served on Geauga County offices:

A. Clerk of Courts 3/16/09

B. County Auditors 3/16/09

C. County Treasurer 3/16/09

D. County Commissioners 4/24/2009

Plaintiff has failed to join all indispensable parties and/or necessary parties and/or real parties.

5/27/2009 ADDITION TO SEGEDY AFFIDAVIT FILED.

5/27/2009 POVERT'Y AFFIDAVI'f FILED.

4

5/27/2009 MOTION TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FILED. (ALLEN E. SEGEDY)

5/8/2009 PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ALLENSEGEDY'S MOTION TO DISMISS.

5/12/2009 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF PARTY FILED.

5/18/2009 ORDER OF THE COURT FILED. *DENIED MOTION TO DISMISS.

5/27/2009 MO'TION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND STAY FILED.

5/28/2009 SUMMONS RETURNED. PERSONAL SERVICE COMPLETED ONALLEN SEGEDY ON 05/27/2009.

5/4/2009 FILED. MOTION TO DISMISS FILED. ATTORNEY: PROSE (ALLEN E.SEGEDY).

6/20/2009 DEFENDANT ALLEN SEGEDY'S MO'I'ION TO DEFAULT.

6/11/2009 FIEARING REQUEST ON JURISDICTION AND FOR STAY FILED.

6/17/2009 ORDER OF THE COURT FILED. *DENIED DEF. ALLEN E. SEGEDY'SMOTION.

Segedy was served June 27, 2009.

On page three of ANSWER OF DEFENDANTALLEN E. SEGEDYCOUNTER & COUNTER CLAIM OFALLEN E. SEGEDYCROSS CLAIM OFALLEN E. SEGEDYTHIRD PARTY COMPLAINT BYBY DEFENDANTALLEN E. SEGEDY

(JURY DEMANDENDORSED HEREON)

Line 9 #7. Do not understand.

Line 10 #8. Do not understand under what contract, who is damaged parties.

Line 11 #9. Do not understand under what contract.

Line 12 WHEREFORE:

5

Line 13. 1. Do not understand.

Line 14. 2. Waiting for court to Default Judgment for plaintiffs not answering within 28

Line 15 days; 4 (four) Notice of Deficiencies served on Geauga County offices:

Line 16 A. Clerk of Courts 3/16/09

Line 17 B. County Auditors 3/16/09

Line 18. C. County Treasurer 3/16/09

Line 19. D. County Commissioners 4/24/2009

On Page 5 (as above)

Line 33 As discussed herein, the Plaintiff has failed to show a clear legal duty of and a clear legal

Line 34 right to have the court of common please have restitution, appoint counsel in a civil foreclosure

action

On Page 6 (as above)

Line 2 Plaintiff has failed to join all indispensable parties and/or necessary parties and/or real parties

Line 3 in this case.

Line 5 Plaintiff's claims are barred because they did not reply in 28 days.

Line 7 Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Line 9 Plaintiff is not entitled to represent person unknown at the time pursuant to the ORC, which

Line 10 will be part of Defendant's upon Plaintiff's interrogatories.

Line 12 The Plaintiff is not entitled to action under the law unless and until it is proven Plaintiff's

Line 13 sustained injuries, damages and losses as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiff s

negligence.

Line 45 Defendant asserts all defenses available pursuant to LAW and the false law interpreting

same.

6

On Page 7 (as above)

Line Jury Demand

Line Defendant demands a trial by jtiuy.

The appellant appealed to the Geauga County Common Pleas Court and, upon the affirmance

of the commission's decision, appealed to the Geauga County Court of Appeals. The court of appeals

affirmed the judgment of the court of common pleas.

The court of appeals errored in ruling that the lower court had the right to act. The court of

appeals also errored in failing to recognize that the court did have jurisdiction.

In support of its position on these issues, the appellant presents the following argument.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW

ProAosition of Law No. I: One has 28 days to reply or lose one's rights as per law in this

court.

Plaintiff's Claims Aeainst Seeedv should Be Dismissed as a Matter of Law BecauseAll Necessary Parties for Such an Action Are Not Before This court.

As a threshold matter, the Court lacks jurisdiction to render a Court judgment because all

necessary parties to the action are not before the court R.C. § 2721.2 provides that "when declaratory

relief is sought... in an action or proceeding, all persons who have or claim any interest that would be

affected by the declaration shall be made parties to the action." See Cleveland Trust Company v.

Pomeroy (Cuyahoga Cty. 1961), 177 N.E. 2d 410, 412 (Where all the affected beneficiaries are not

before the Court, a declaratory judgment is not proper.).

In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to name as parties to this action all persons benefiting

from this action as of the contingent beneficiaries unknown to the Defendant Segedy, all of whose

7

interest as beneficiaries would be affected by declaratory judgment. As a result, Action against Segedy

should be dismissed on this basis alone.

Proposition of Law No. II: All necessary parties not part of case under R.C. Chapter

2721.

There Is Evidence in the Record SuEeestina That the county Officers HadBreached His/Her Fiduciary Duty With ReEard to Elective Office as in a "Trust!"

A "fiduciary" is a person having a duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for the

benefit of another in matters connected with his undertaking. Strock v. Pressnell (I988) 38 Ohio St.

3d, 207.216 (citations and quotation omitted); see, also Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Society Nat'l Bank

(1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 433, 442 (defining a fiduciary relationship as one in which trust is placed in the

integrity and faithfulness of another resulting in a position of control or influence acquired by virtue of

the special trust). Claim of breach of a fiduciary duty is basically a claini of negligence, albeit

involving a higher standard of care. Strock, 38 Ohio St. 3d at 216 (external quotations omitted).

Under Ohio law. [s]o long as a trustee executes the trust in good faith and within the limits of sound

discretion, a court of equity will not interfere with that discretion or undertake to substitute its

discretion therefore." Hopkins v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1955), 163 Ohio St. 539 syllabus paragraph

one. While it is true that a trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary, (everyone using monies

generated by Geauga County) that duty is confined solely to representing the interests granted by the

terms of the trust.

Proposition of Law No. III:

There Is Evidence in the Record Sueeestine That Segedy Lacked Capacitv at theTime of the Execution Court Action.

8

Defendant assets in his cross Complaint that he lacks capacity to validly execute the unknown

contract or defend himself, hence request counsel. As a general rule, "[w]here there is imbecility or

weakness of mind arising from old age, sickness, intemperance, or other cause, and plain inadequacy

of consideration, where there is weakness of mind, and circumstances of undue influence and

advantage, in either case, a contract may be set aside in equity." Tracey v. Sacket (1852), 1 Ohio St.

54, 60. However, advanced years or resulting physical infirmities do incapacitate a person to make a

contract unless the person is thereby rendered mentally incapable of protecting his or her property

rights. Monroe v. Shivers (Morgan Cty. 1927), 29 Ohio App. 199, 11]. Moreover, senility,

eccentricity, or even partial impairment of the mental faculties, are necessarily sufficient to

incapacitate the grantor if he or she has lacks mental capacity to comprehend the nature of the

transaction and to protect his or her own interest. Id. At 112. As such, a party seeking rescission and

cancellation of a contract on the ground that the grantor lacked capacity has the burden of proving such

incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. Willis v. Baker (1906), 75 Ohio St. 291, 203.

Furthermore, in Ohio.

the same rules as to mental capacity that apply to wills apply also to deeds and other writteninstruments, and, where the grantor has sufficient intellect to understand in a general way thenature and effect and immediate consequences of a transaction, and consents to it, such is validand binding and cannot be set aside for lack of mentality.

Monroe, 29 Ohio App. At 111. One possesses testamentary capacity when he or she has sufficient

mind and memory:

First, to understand the nature of the business in which he is engaged; [s]econd, to comprehendgenerally the nature and extent of his property; [t]hird, to hold in his mind the names and il:eidentify of those who had natural claims upon his bounty; [and] [fJourth, to be able toappreciate this relations to the members of his family.

9

The evidence in the record regarding lack of capacity is adequate to meet the clear and

convincing standard of proof as is required under Ohio law. Plaintiff points to no concrete illustration

of Segedy's incapacity.

Therefore, Plaintiff's action should be dismissed as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, this case involves matters of public and great general interest

and a substantial constitutional question. The appellant requests that this court accept jurisdiction in

this case so that the important issues presented will be reviewed on the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

Allen E. Segedy7707 Country LaneChagrin Falls, Ohio 44023(440) 543-9757without prejudiceUniform Commercial Code 1-207 and 1-103without Attorneywith Disabilities

Certificate of Seivice

I certify that a copy of the Notice of Appeal was sent by ordinary U.S. mail to BrideyMatheney, Esq. (Attorney for Plaintiff), Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 231 Main Street, 3`d Floor,Chardon, Ohio 44024 "t °` 9't ` 0 `i , 2009.

Allen E. Segedy, Appellant

10

APPENDIX

THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO

CHRISTOPHER P. HITCHCOCK,TREASURER OF GEAUGA COUNTY,OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

ARTHUR E. SEGEDY, JR., et al.,

Defendants,

ALLEN E. SEGEDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

0.2009-G-2907

F 1 Of AP^cs couR^

DE,ASE M. ugvs

cGEAVt3A^ TSV

Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09 F 000356.

Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

David P. Joyce, Geauga County Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street,Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Allen E. Segedy, pro se, 7707 Country Lane, Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 (Defendant-Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.

{¶1} On June 26, 2009, appellant, Allen E. Segedy, pro se, filed a notice of

appeal from a June 17, 2009 entry of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶2} On March 27, 2009, appellee, Christopher P. Hitchcock, Treasurer of

Geauga County, Ohio, filed a complaint in foreclosure against several people including

l

Allen Segedy. Allen then filed a motion to dismiss on May 4, 2009, which the trial court

denied on May 18, 2009. Subsequently, on May 27, 2009, Allen filed a motion for

default judgment. On June 17, 2009, the trial court denied Allen's motion for default

judgment. Allen filed the instant appeal from that decision.

{Q3} Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution limits the jurisdiction of

an appellate court to the review of final judgments of lower courts. Genn v. Fuerst, 11 th

Dist. No. 2003-L-116, 2003-Ohio-6241, ¶3. In order for a judgment to be final and

appealable, the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B), if applicable, must be

satisfied. See Alden v. Kovar, 11th Dist. Nos. 2006-T-0050 and 2006-T-0051, 2006 WL

1816263, at ¶5, citing to Chef ltaliano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d

86, 88. Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B), there are five categories of a "final order," and if a

trial court's judgment satisfies any of them, it will be considered a"final ordee' which can

be immediately appealed and reviewed by a court of appeals.i{q4} Here, the trial court's order does not fit within any of the categories of R.C.

2505.02. The triat court's denial of default judgment is analogous to the denial of

summary judgment. "An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final

appealable order." State ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 23.

Moreover, the denial of summary judgment is always reviewable on an appeal from a

subsequent final judgment. Sagenich v. Erie Ins. Group (Dec. 12, 2003), 11th Dist. No.

2003-T-0144, 2003 WL 22952586, at ¶3.

{TI5} While tiie trial court's judgrrient in this case denied Allen an irnmediate

remedy much like the denial of a summary judgment, it clearly did not determine the

action or prevent a judgment. The trial court's determination may prolong the matter,

but it did not decide the case. The denial of default judgment is simply an interlocutory

2

order. See Kondrat v. Mitrovich (May 25, 1984), 11th Dist. No. 9-185, 1984 Ohio App.

LEXIS 10054; Rulli v. Rulli, 7th Dist. No. 01 CA 114, 2002-Ohio-3205, at ¶12; Haley v.

Reisinger, 9th Dist. No. 24376, 2009-Ohio-447. It is not a final order, and appellant will

have a meaningful and effective remedy by way of an appeal once a final judgment is

reached as to all claims and parties when the case is decided and/or dismissed. See

Johnson v. Warren Police Dept, 11th Dist. No. 2005-T-0117, 2005-Ohio-6904, at ¶14.

{¶6} Accordingly, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed for lack of a final

appealable order.

{117} Appeal dismissed.

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,

concur.

3

STATE OF OHIO)SS.

COUNTY OF GEAUGA )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER P. HITCHCOCK, JUDGMENT ENTRYTREASURER OF GEAUGA COUNTY,OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee, FIL r'vCASE NO. 2009-G-2907

TOfi:.p a1^ RFJsi r

AUG i ft ¢AARTHUR E. SEGEDY, JR., et A' N"SEM .

GtFqE^ F^Of1"'S1Defendants, t cou,yn

ALLEN E. SEGEDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered

that this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

. ^1^^ Arc or)l

PR9Q& ING JUDGE MARY JANE TRAPP

FOR THE COURT

5

STA'TF OF OHIO )) SS: AFFIDAVIT

COUNTY OF GEAUGA )

ALLEN E. SEGEDY, having been duly sworn according to law, states as follows:

1. I ani a named Defendant in the case entitled Christopher P. Hitchcock, Geauga County

Treasurer vs. Allen E. Segedy, et a1., Case No. 09 F 000356.

2. That the facts contained in the attached are true to the best of'my knowledge.

AfCant Further SayetliNaught.

^r'eShown To And Subscribed before me on this IZ- day of 2009.

DARLENE G. CALHOUNNotary Public for the 8tate o4 Ohio

My Cammission Expires August, 1, 28t0

6