attachment to affaidavit ti disqualify transcript of oral argument

1

KATHY SIMPSON, Official Court ReporterClermont County Court of Common Plea

270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO

ROBERT ILES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs : Case No. 2013CVH367

DENNIS SKEENE, : SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant. :

- - -

APPEARANCES

On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendant:

ROBERT ILES, PRO SE MARK A. TEKULVE, ESQ.

BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled

hearing came on to be heard before the Honorable

Victor M. Haddad, on the 6th day of August, 2014.

KATHY SIMPSON, Official Court Reporter

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas

270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103 THE COURT: All right. The Court is going to call

13CVH0367, Robert Iles v. Skeene. Mr. Iles, good morning.

MR. ILES: Good morning, Sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Tekulve for Mr. Skeene. Let me --

all right. The Court set a summary judgment briefing

schedule back on June 13th. Summary judgment was filed by

Mr. Skeene. Let me make sure of just something here. And

then I believe, Mr. Iles, you responded?

MR. ILES: Yes, I did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And Mr. Tekulve, I can't say that --

did you have a filed response?

MR. TEKULVE: No.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. It's your

motion, Mr. Tekulve, or your client's motion. Do you want

to briefly argue it, and then I'll turn to Mr. Skeene, let

you have final, and --

MR. TEKULVE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. TEKULVE: Thank you. Your Honor, I'm not going to burden the Court with running through the legal standards on a motion for summary judgment or --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TEKULVE: -- the requirements of Rule 56. But

the central issue here -- the main issue, Your Honor, is the complaint alleging several things: wrongful eviction,3

Conversion, invasion of privacy, and some vague allegations

relating to personal injuries resulting in long-term

disabilities. [Emphasis added for the purposes of disqualification]

Now, we have submitted, Your Honor, and it's

Acceptable under Rule 56, and have given the Court, I think,a very accurate time line of what has transpired. But going back to this, Your Honor, it was a -- it was a -- Mr. Iles and others occupied the Skeene premises at 104 Broadway in Moscow for probably about 4 years until March 2, 2012, when a tornado rendered the premises uninhabitable. And we referred and attached a copy of the pertinent Revised Code section here for your review. It essentially says that -- when -- in an event such as that occurs the tenancy is terminated. So, that being said, Your Honor, there's no eviction. There's no trespass obviously under the landlord-tenant laws. The Landlord has the right to inspect and protect his premises. [Emphasis added]Other than some vague and false allegations set forth in the complaint, Mr. Iles frankly has submitted no evidence to this Court to dispute any of the facts.

The law is very clear in the area. I did look at

Mr. Iles' response of July 15th, Your Honor. I'm not sure

what to make of it. I don't think -- well, it doesn't

appear to me, Your Honor, that it is sufficient under the

law to give the Court any information that there's a factual dispute here. There is no evidence submitted, Your Honor, to support his claim of trespass, invasion of privacy,Conversion, or any personal injury. So on that basis, Your Honor, I'm going to keep this brief because I don't need to read my motion and affidavit to you. You've got it. We've

-- we -- it's our opinion, Your Honor, and our position that based upon the law the status of the -- the state of the facts in this matter that the motion for summary judgment filed by on behalf of the Skeene's ought to be granted.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Tekulve. Mr. Iles?

MR. ILES: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: In the -- during the last hearing we

had before counsel moved for a motion for summary judgment

--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- I introduced a document. The Court

is too busy to recall, but basically it was dated March the

29th --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- 2012, and it really contains every

one of -- it supports every argument in the complaint that I Filed on my behalf. Number one, it admits the trespassing.And in Ohio the laws are very clear that trespassing by a Landlord, it is trespassing unless a landlord gives a notice. Even in a dire emergency, the law requires a Minimum of a 24-hour notice. The evidence before the Court Including Mr. Skeene's answers to his -- to interrogatories clearly states that he did not give notice. If it had been an emergency, his interrogatory answer clearly say that he on or about the 8th day of March -- actually it was the 6th day he stated, he entered the premises with an appraiser from an insurance company without notice. Now, they allege that I was there when Mr. Skeene and the insurance adjustor was there. That is simply not true. Therefore, the interrogatory is perjured.

In addition to that action, Mr. Skeene admitted that Noah Skeene and his wife were also there. There's --

Theyre co-defendants in this action. And they were there,

and hints that they were there with him on several occasions. And again, that's all trespassing and an

Invasion of my privacy. The document also shows that there

were rentals of two dumpsters, and the removal of personal

Items left behind. That's Mr. Skeene's invoice to me

Charging me for the two dumpsters. The dumpster brings up

Another ground, another claim that is not on the existing

Claim which required by law an amended complaint. And that

is, destruction of evidence. One of the arguments here is conversion. He threw away the evidence of the conversion according to him. The document also supports the fact that he did in fact take my property. No landlord has the right even if I were evicted by the sheriff -- the landlord does not have any right to take my -- my personal property and throw it in the dumpster. He has to provide me with notice of his intent and give me an opportunity to get my stuff moved. In their documents they say that Pam Felts authorized the destruction of property. They've argued continuously that Pam Felts --

I could not represent Pam Felts. Now, they're going to switch and say that Pam Felts can represent me? She has no right to give my stuff away. She had no right to the apartment other than my co-inhabitant. I paid all of the rent. I negotiated the lease and all terms of the lease. So Pam had no authority whatsoever pertaining to 104 Broadway. Mr. Skeene openly admits he threw my stuff away. That's conversion. That's also destruction of property. What's the value of what he threw away? I asked specifically, Give me an inventory of what was there. Answer: No inventory maintained. I can say it's worth 100 million dollars. He can't deny it. In reality what he introduced to me through his motion for summary judgment is they took pictures. The

pictures show us, me in particular, that they have seriously modified the interior. They have claimed all along that the eviction process doesn't pertain to them because the storm eliminated it, because the building was destroyed. Now that they've introduced the documents from Clermont County which clearly says the building is not destroyed. It says with a red tag that the building had to be tagged. And any time -- any time the property owner could call the county and the county would come out and give another appraisal which Mr. Skeene did after all the insurance adjustors left, and he got a judgment on the insurance company. Then he contacted Clermont County. And in 5 days he had a permit to put on a building -- a new roof on the building. Why would you put a new roof on a building that is destroyed? So their own evidence is contrary to what their defense is as to not having to comply with the provision of eviction under Landlord-Tenant Act of 1974. The cite that respected counsel gives, he's using a cite that was repealed. It's a 1954 law. It was repealed in '74. And as of the repeal the law says that the only way that a landlord can get a tenant out of a building is to go through the process of eviction which starts with a 3-day notice, and then the sheriff can set the tenant out. Again, not one piece of paper, not one verbal communication from Skeene to me has ever said, You're evicted. He said that Pam accepted eviction. That's up to he and Pam. She's not a part of this case. No evidence about her or from her can e introduced in this case, which they served on me a cassette tape. And on the cassette tape is Pam and Mr. Skeene. And on that tape -- and I'll be glad to have it here. I have it here if you want to hear it. Skeene to Pam referencing the building. Pam to Skeene, "Is it coming down?" "Yes, tomorrow." That's on the 8th.

No building was torn down. It was never condemned. It was never even thought to be torn down. It was all a ruse to get Pam to admit that she didn't she surrendered the building. And again, she may have. I have

no idea. Other than what I hear on the tape, which I've

never talked to Pam about it, never talked to Mr. Skeene

about it. I did not give and do not give up on the

building. As the law stands today, I still have control

over the premises. I have merely been locked out and locked

away from my belongings by Mr. Skeene. We have disputes, many disputes. One, I have lost

more than 50 percent of my lung capacity because as of March 12, 2012, right after that I began being admitted time and again to the hospital, being to the doctor at one time almost every week. I'm now on permanent medication for

allergies. My contention is those allergies were because of

the toxic micro organisms that were in that building and

Particularly when that tornado hit. It is Mr. Skeene's

responsibility to maintain that property including keeping infestation of critters out of it. He failed in that. The

reason he wanted to get rid of the property -- if he did, I

don't know -- but the reason we wanted to do, because I need that same property to be analyzed by an expert to determine if in fact that property was contaminated.

I'm barred now, because he threw it away without notice, by his own admission on the exhibit before. He used two dumpsters to throw it away. However, the videos -- and

again, it brings up a fraud on the court, it brings up

spoliation of evidence, and refusal -- not by ignorance by

intention, and aided and abetted by his attorney -- refusal

to comply with discovery. In my original discovery in 2013

I asked for all documents and all photographs of any nature. Now, in 2014 after April, they're delivering to me

what -- through discovery finally, they're delivering to me

what they're saying is photographic evidence of the damage

to the building. There's no damage. There's modification,

but no damage. The dates on the documents copying

Indicating that I received certain CDs, and the cassette

tapes I had mentioned before. I went to the post office --

and I have evidence here. I went to the post office with

mister -- I don't know the pronunciation?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. ILES: Counsel's name?

THE COURT: Mr. Tekulve. MR. ILES: Tekulve -- Mr. Tekulve's envelope. And

I had the envelope weighed, and I have again the postal

Inspections work here. I had it weighed before and after 2

CDs were placed in that document, in that envelope. There

were no CDs in the envelope according to the weight. And I

have brought here also a scale, and I've brought all of the

evidence so we can do the weighing of the evidence right

here in Court to prove that the CDs were never sent to me.

Now they're using those CDs to the Court as evidence of the

destruction. The documents --

THE COURT: What CDs? What CDs, Mr. Isles? I

don't have any CDs. MR. ILES: They didn't give the Court a copy of

the --

THE COURT: No, sir.

MR. ILES: Okay. I'm sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If they did, I don't have them.

MR. ILES: On their motion -- on their --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- their motion for --

THE COURT: Summary judgment?

MR. ILES: -- summary judgment?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: You'll see copies of labels.

THE COURT: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I saw -- MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: -- I saw copies, but I don't have

that.

MR. ILES: Now, three thirty fourteen.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Take me a second here.

THE COURT: That's all right.

MR. ILES: Okay. I've got a splitting headache,

Your Honor, so I'm having a hard time seeing this.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: There we go, and three eleven twelve.


MR. ILES: That was never produced. To this day,

I don't know what that CD was contained.

THE COURT: I don't either.

MR. ILES: Now, they've been kind enough to do

photographs other than the CDs and the tape. Do you have

them -- those, Your Honor?

THE COURT: What's that? Yeah, I do have those,

Mr. Iles.

MR. ILES: They allege in their complaint that

there was extensive damage to the building.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Now they've changed it from destruction

to damage. THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Under the laws in Ohio under damaged

property there has to be an extended time element to fix the property or the tenant, not the landlord, the tenant has the option of giving up the tenancy, which as I had stated before I have not given up. The pictures of the building are telling in a lot of ways. Number one, there is not one bulged wall. And you've got ever angle here, and not one wall shows any signs of destruction or damage. The roof is the only damage caused by the tornado itself, the winds. And the gable of the roof was blown off. And I reemphasize again that any time that Mr. Skeene wanted to call the county, the county would come out and reinspect. Which he did call, and according to his own documents, he waited --

I'll find out here in a second to guide the Court. That's

answers. I'm sorry. That's answers as to the interrogatories. It's in his -- I'm in the wrong package

here.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: It's the same -- same photographs. He

just sent it twice. But on the -- in the motion for summary

judgment -- oh, there's another one. 311, did you see that

one? That CD in 311?

THE COURT: Yeah, okay. Yeah. Yeah, I've

received it. MR. ILES: Maybe I'm repeating myself.

THE COURT: No, that's all right.

MR. ILES: I apologize if I am.

THE COURT: No, no.

MR. ILES: Two documents. Number one, I object to

the documents or the photographs being evidence for the

Defense, because they had failed to give them during

discovery, and now they're doing like a summary motion by

ambush by entering evidence that I have never been able to

even test. Clermont County Permit Central is -- is the

document, and they have it marked as 131-F. On that

document it shows the inspector was a James Young. It says

there, "Exterior walls, damaged roof, missing red tagged and

50 percent."

Now, I don't understand, Your Honor, but I --

maybe the Defendant does. Then on 3/4 -- that was on 3/3.

On 3/4 it was changed to 40 percent. On 3/14/12, the

building inspector provided another package with whatever

their gibberish is. I apologize. And then applied proof of

repairs. That -- that's the next one. Applied for a roof

repair permit. And that application was on 5/12 he applied

for a roof permit. And only Mr. Skeene can tell you, or us,

or the Court the day he actually put the gables on. But the

point of the notice of permit and the action on Mr. Skeene's part is very simple. He drug his feet to get the insurance settlement, and they only get him a total on the building.

And I personally talked to the vice president in charge of

claims, and he was shocked when I told him --

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, I'm going to object at

this point.

MR. ILES: -- That Skeene has put --

MR. TEKULVE: I'm let him ramble on --

MR. ILES: -- a new roof on the building.

MR. TEKULVE: -- about evidence that's not

permissible. I've let him talk disparagingly of my client

and of me.

MR. ILES: I apologize, sir. I didn't mean to

hurt your feelings.

MR. TEKULVE: Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate

that. Your Honor, I would ask you to caution him to confine

his argument to the evidence permitted under Civil Rule 56.

MR. ILES: I'll do that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. ILES: And the evidence I'm talking about is

he submit it.


MR. ILES: So it is evidence, sir. It is evidence

you gave, and I'm asking the Court, number one, for your

defense to disregard it, but I want to incorporate it as my

argument. Because you did not provide it to me on time as required by law.

MR. TEKULVE: Well, at this point, Your Honor, we

filed the discovery on the deadlines the Court gave us.

Prior to my involvement, he had filed a motion to compel

against Mr. Skeene. We met with the magistrate late last

year. We filed the discovery. I think in Court Mr. Iles

has acknowledge he may forget that or he's not being

truthful, I don't know. But he did acknowledge that he had

received the discovery. Then he sent us a second set of

interrogatories. We responded to those, filed them with the

Court despite the fact that he had not complied with the

Court order and filed the interrogatories with the Court.

We responded by the date required, and that was back on

April 14th of this year.

This is the first I've heard, now he's alleging

some -- some discovery problem. I -- I don't think he

really is in a position to be heard on that. We're not here

for a motion to compel. I'm not sure what -- what he's

claiming, but I filed everything -- a copy of everything I

sent to him with the Court. Obviously, I didn't send the

original CDs with the Court. I supplied the Court with a

copy of the disc. So I -- I really I'm think we ought to

confine this matter to what's in the rule. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Go on, Mr. Iles.

MR. ILES: Again, Your Honor, I apologize to any problems I've given to counsel. The law under -- the reason

for the discovery is I started trying to get discovery --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- in 2013. As he just stated to the

Court that in 2014 he answered my second set of

Interrogatories, but my argument is clear. The documents

that I have in front of me and that he submitted to this

Court as evidence proves that they didn't give me full

disclosure as requested in discovery. And the concealment

of discovery materials is a -- not only a fraud on the

Court, because the Court can't function without evidence,

it's a fraud on the Plaintiff. He can't function without

evidence. And it is prohibited by law as in the famous case

of Walmart -- in -- in Smith, particularly, that a

concealment of discovery materials is spoliation of

evidence. That's a new claim. And I acknowledge by the law

anytime I want to bring up a claim I discovered during the

proceedings I had to file an amended complaint, which I'm

making a verbal motion to do now. And --MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, I'll object at this

point. He's alleging spoliation when apparently he received

a document in March of 2013. So I'm not sure what he thinks

is recent discovery, but that ain't it.

THE COURT: Have -- have you amended once already?

MR. ILES: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh.

MR. ILES: I had a motion in to amend based upon

me talking to some other --

THE COURT: No, have you amended your complaint

once before?

MR. ILES: No, Your Honor. I have not.

THE COURT: All right. Go on. I'm listening.

MR. ILES: What he's -- the document he's

referring to that was withheld during discovery is, for an

example, the Clermont County building inspector's

information.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Specifically, that was requested, and

intentionally it was withheld until they perceived it to be

to their advantage. And then they want to introduce it

through this case, or this portion of the case being the

motion for summary judgment. But it's obvious with the

arguments between counsel and myself, is there are disputed

issues. The issue of spoliation of evidence is a new one,

and I admit it. And I just discovered it, and that's a

reason I'm motioning for the Court to allow me to amend my

complaint to show the spoliation of evidence and punitive

damages because of that spoiled -- spoliation of that

evidence. Exhibit 1, I go back to that. It showed that Mr.

Skeene destroyed critical evidence needed for me to prove 3

one the -- the complaint. The reason that -- the reason --

the ground -- the reason I brought it to this Court is

because it exceeded the limit of the municipal court. And

that is personal injury. I need and need access to the 104

with a forensic expert to do an analysis on the contaminants if they still exist -- which I strongly suspect even by Mr. Skeene's own documents that they do not.

THE COURT: I -- not to interrupt you, Mr. Iles,

but back on January 17th you made some comment about

amending your complaint. And my entry here -- my entry of

continuance says, Motion for leave to file amended complaint

by Mr. Iles no later than 2/28 of '14, then set for hearing.

I don't think you filed the motion to get leave to file your amended complaint. So I -- I -- I was going to allow it because you made some point about amending your complaint back at a discussion we had on January 17th of 2014. And I wrote, "Motion for leave to file amended complaint by Mr.

Iles to be filed no later than 2/28 of '14." Then, set that

hearing for motion if you filed it so I could hear Mr.

Skeene's argument about why I shouldn't let you amend. I'm

just point that out.

MR. ILES: I -- I appreciate it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, and I want to point out on March

7th, which was the next date -- because you did file a

motion to compel. And although the Court never resolved the motion to compel, what happened was on March 7th I indicated Mr. Iles to file a second set of interrogatories no later than 3/14 of '14, and Mr. Skeene to answer by 4/14 of '14. And I believe those -- those were answered timely. And then what happened -- just so I can make a record little bit.

And I'm sorry to interrupt you.

MR. ILES: No, I'm fine, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: On April 18th, which was the next

court date we set for a scheduling conference to discuss

whether you had what you needed. It came on -- let -- let

me -- let me do it another way. Hold on. Let me make sure.

Just make sure I'm not missing something. I -- I set a

scheduling conference April 18th from March 7th. I set a

Scheduling conference on April 18th. I put, "Plaintiff Iles

motion to compel will pend. Depositions must be set after

the scheduling conference on April 18th."

So your motion to compel was pending while you're

filing your interrogatories second set, while Mr. Tekulve

was responding to that. April 18th comes around. April

18th it's set for a scheduling conference and for Civil Rule

41(B)(1) dismissal relating to Pam Felts, Stephaney Naegele,

Jayden Naegele and Zane Naegele. I noted that Mr. Tekulve

was present, that none of those folks were present on behalf

of the Plaintiffs. At that time, since Ms. Felts,

Stephaney, Jayden and Zane weren't there, the Court dismissed without prejudice their claims under 41(B)(1).

Then I set it -- and I'll note that on April 18th you didn't show up either.

MR. ILES: Your Honor, if I may interrupt?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ILES: It's important for the --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ILES: -- timing. On, I believe -- I believe

it was March 22nd I was admitted to the hospital.

THE COURT: I remember you mentioned. Yeah, okay.

MR. ILES: And they, because of -- I --

THE COURT: But we didn't -- we didn't know that.

MR. ILES: Okay. But I brought it up to the

Court.

THE COURT: You did bring it up, but I'm just --

I'm just telling you why your motion to compel technically

was never heard, because it -- it pended while we were doing interrogatory exchange.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: Then on April 18th when you and the

rest of the Plaintiffs didn't show up, on April 18th I

dismissed out everyone except you. Then I set the matter

for dismissal against you on May 9th. On May 9th I ordered

-- on April 18th I order that since all of the other

Plaintiffs have been dismissed, only Mr. Iles and counsel,3

Mr. Tekulve for Mr. Skeene must be present. If Mr. Iles

fails to appear on May 9th, the case will be dismissed for

failure to prosecute. On -- on -- let's see. On May 9th

you were not present. At that time Mr. Tekulve asked that

the Court set this for dismissal as to you, and he was going to file the motion for frivolous conduct, and he did in time. And we set it -- excuse me. That was on -- let me --

let me find the entry. Then we set it for June 13th.

On June 13th you showed up and told the Court and

Mr. Tekulve what your medical issues were, and why you

failed to appear on May 9th. And -- and I think one time

before. So the Court set an entry that for those reasons

the motion for attorney fees on frivolous conduct was denied at that time, but may renewed at the conclusion of the case.

And further, based upon the record the Court did not go

ahead and grant the dismissal against you for failing to

prosecute, and then set the briefing schedule for the

Summary judgment.

So I -- I want the record to reflect that your

motion to compel pended while you and Mr. Tekulve were

exchanging interrogatories. Then you didn't show up on two

occasions. Then the Court set it for dismissal against you

and didn't dismiss it because you did show up and you gave

an excusable reason for not showing up. So I didn't dismiss

the case against you. In the meanwhile, the Court assumed

that the discovery was going back and forth. You brought up

what you didn't get, and I'm just explaining to you I was

working on that, but then when you didn't make it for the

reason you stated it kind of -- it kind of lost it's way.

And now, you bring it up again that you don't have all the

discovery.

I want to tell you why, and I want the record to

reflect why. We never had a separate hearing on -- on your

motion to compel, because you missed a couple of court

appointments, and it kind of changed the dynamic of the

case.

MR. ILES: Excuse me. I missed a motion to compel

hearing?

THE COURT: No, you missed scheduling conferences

--

MR. ILES: Oh, I'm -- I'm sorry, Sir.

THE COURT: -- and so --

MR. ILES: I'm trying -- trying to digest this.

THE COURT: No, that's all right. And that --

that's where the scheduling conferences I would say to you,

Mr. Iles, now that you've submitted your second set of

interrogatories, and Mr. Tekulve responded, do you have

everything you think you need? That's when I do that.

MR. ILES: May I -- may I, Your Honor?

THE COURT: But you didn't show up. MR. ILES: May I?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ILES: Without knowing that the CDs even

existed, I couldn't have told you.

THE COURT: I get that. I'm just -- I'm not

arguing --

MR. ILES: But that's the concealment I'm arguing.

THE COURT: I know, but I -- now, when you talk

about amending a complaint, because that's where this all

started, I don't know if you knew back then what you know

now about your amending your complaint, but at this stage if

-- if you want to amend your complaint what -- I mean, it's

a liberal construction, but at this stage of the proceedings

I'm not inclined to -- to give you that leave. If what you

want to do is -- if what you feel like you need to do, Mr.

Iles is go back and add things to your complaint, and make

new discovery requests then the option you have -- and I'm

not giving you advice. The option you have is to

voluntarily dismiss this claim, and then you have some --

you -- you know the law as well as anybody else. You have

some rights to refile it under a savings statute within a

period of time. Then you can refile your complaint with all

your claims in it, and we start anew. But I -- I want to

address that.

MR. ILES: Okay. Will the Court address issue of res adjudicata in that?

THE COURT: Well, we haven't -- we haven't -- I

have not yet decided any issues of fact on this case, so my

-- my instinct when you use that word is that there's no

issue preclusion, because I haven't decided anything yet.

MR. ILES: Thank you, Your Honor. I will withdraw

my complaint --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ILES: -- and I will refile.

THE COURT: So what you want to do is you want to

voluntarily dismiss your complaint is when --

MR. ILES: Yes, Your Honor. And the reason I'm

doing that is because the most critical complaint I have in

the present complaint is my personal injury --

THE COURT: I'm just -- I -- I --

MR. ILES: -- and with the spoliation -- the

spoliation of evidence rule I have to make the complaint in

this complaint. Or if you're saying we dismiss it and start

anew --

THE COURT: I'm not telling you what to do. I'm

just telling you --

MR. ILES: No. No, Your Honor. I understand.

THE COURT: -- I'm just telling you what your

options are.

MR. ILES: As long as -- as long as it doesn't give counsel the foothold to say res adjudicata.

THE COURT: Well, I -- I don't know what you mean.

Res adjudicata on what?

MR. ILES: Been tried before, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I understand that, but we

haven't tried anything.

MR. ILES: If --

THE COURT: So if there's something that's been

tried that I'm not aware of, I'm not speaking to that. If

you're talking about the issues in your complaint --

MR. ILES: Which I am.

THE COURT: -- the Court has not finally disposed

or dispositively disposed with any issues in the complaint.

So that's all I'm --

MR. ILES: So --

THE COURT: -- going to say about that, because I

don't know what --

MR. ILES: I understand. I understand. You don't

-- you can't -- you can't help --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. ILES: -- here, but my position is I have no

problem with dismissing the current complaint because of the debacle it is by having two other plaintiffs on it with me.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. ILES: But the new complaint

THE COURT: -- well, I think there were three

others, weren't there, or more?

MR. ILES: Well, there were a mother representing

her two sons --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: -- and Pam.

THE COURT: And I -- I've dismissed those people

out.

MR. ILES: Yes. Yes.

THE COURT: So -- and I'm going to talk to Mr.

Tekulve when we're done talking here, but if -- if that's --

if that deter -- if you determine that's the avenue you may

go, then -- and I'm not telling you what you can and cannot

do, but I would not make them parties again. I've dismissed

them out.

MR. ILES: I -- I wouldn't want them to be

parties, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. All right.

MR. ILES: I didn't it want really in the first

place.

THE COURT: All right. All right.

MR. ILES: But the economics of the matter of one

court case to fall --


MR. ILES: -- complaints


MR. ILES: -- to me make sense.


MR. ILES: Now --

THE COURT: Go on.

MR. ILES: The -- the next obstacle that may

appear, may arise is the statute of limits of filing the

complaint.

THE COURT: I'm not going to get in -- I -- I

can't get into all that with you, because I don't --

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: -- know what it might be.

MR. ILES: So to -- because I am not sure, but I

-- my brain tells me that there could be a motion against it that I couldn't overcome because naturally it's been more

than 2 years --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: So I want to just proceed with the

newly discovered spoliation of evidence claim requiring me

by Supreme Court law of Ohio to file a amended complaint,

because I can't bring the complaint up as a new issue

because I discovered it during this -- this -- these

proceedings.


MR. ILES: So I stand that -- I -- I desire to get that complaint, spoliation of evidence, before this Court in these matters.

THE COURT: You need to look at the -- I don't

know the -- what the saving statute number is. There's a

saving statute that allows you -- I don't know how that

affects any statute of limitation.

MR. ILES: Statute of limitations -- and I just

read a case --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- to where we're -- I mean, it's

almost as if this was scripted for that -- from that case.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: The complaint was withdrawn. A person

come back and tried to file an amended complaint, and

counsel successfully knocked out a lot of the complaint

because of the statutes.

THE COURT: Your -- maybe what you're saying is --

I don't mean to interrupt you, but you're saying they

dismissed the complaint and refiled the complaint, because

it's not an amended complaint. If you refile, it's a new

complaint.

MR. ILES: It's a new one. The -- what I'm

talking about is the voluntarily dismissal occurred.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ILES: The person refiled, and the answer was bing, bing, bing --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ILES: -- knocking out the critical parts of

the complaint --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- because of the statutory limits.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: If my memory --

THE COURT: Was that successful?

MR. ILES: Please?

THE COURT: Was that successful?

MR. ILES: Yes. Yes. Yeah, they couldn't bring

up. They couldn't -- they couldn't refile.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: The statutory limits to bring a

complaint of wrongful eviction --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- is 2 years.

THE COURT: Okay. And what -- what --

MR. ILES: And we're over 2 years.

THE COURT: When are you alleging the eviction

took place?

MR. ILES: Then by again of looking at the

evidence I'm showing you exactly or I can go by memory. My

memory tells me that Mr. Skeene demanded the keys back on the 8th day --

THE COURT: Of?

MR. ILES: -- of 2012, March of 2012.

THE COURT: Of March. Okay. Okay. All right.

Okay. I got it. Yeah. So by -- by using that calculation

you're -- you believe you're past the 2-year time limit?

MR. ILES: I believe so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Understand. Understand. All right.

MR. ILES: And as a precaution, I would rather

amend then -- and I had not amended before, so it's not

harassment.

THE COURT: No, no, no, no, no, no --

MR. ILES: I would rather amend than dismiss.

THE COURT: No, I just -- it's -- it's a timing

issue, Mr. Iles. I mean, you -- you would come here for a

motion for summary judgment, and then you ask to amend. And

-- and so that would have been my first -- that would have

been the first thing I would have said out of your mouth

before we got into all of these discussions. That's all.

MR. ILES: Your Honor, if I can turn you back

thinking?

THE COURT: No, no.

MR. ILES: Your Honor, just to state again, the

motion for summary judgment --

THE COURT: Right.MR. ILES: -- indicate to me --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- that there has been spoliation of

evidence.

THE COURT: I got that, but you knew that walking

in here today?

MR. ILES: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. That's -- so the first thing

out of my mouth would have said -- would have been, Judge, I

don't want to proceed on the motion for summary judgment. I

want to make a request to amend my complaint.

MR. ILES: Well, the Court had control and gave

the floor to the Defense.

THE COURT: Well, I understand I had control, but

I said, We're here on the motion for summary judgment.

You've not been bashful before about raising your hand

politely and saying, Can I say something before we begin?

MR. ILES: I wish I had --

THE COURT: No, I'm not -- it -- it's -- it's just

-- it's just a procedure, but I hear what you're saying.

All right.

MR. ILES: But according to -- and I've got the

case law here. It's this Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: It clearly says THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: That the issue -- the complaint must be

amended --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- or the -- the complaint can't be

raised.

THE COURT: If it's past the statute of

limitations?

MR. ILES: No, if -- if I don't raise it in this

complaint --

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Oh, I see, yeah.

MR. ILES: -- amend it --

THE COURT: Well, you've got to put him on notice

of what it is that you're going to argue, sure. That's why

if it's not in the complaint you can't argue something that

-- that they're not prepared to defend. And if spoliation

is something you want to amend, and you want to add to the

complaint then yeah, you can't argue it.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: Is that what you're saying?

MR. ILES: Well, I -- I could not argue the last

time we were here about spoliation other than Exhibit 1 --

THE COURT: Because you didn't put him on notice.

MR. ILES: -- right, showing that they disposed of

the stuff.

THE COURT: All right. All right. All right.

MR. ILES: So I did raise before the motion for

summary judgment was ever granted --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- to file one, I did raise the fact

that that one document encompasses every one of my

complaints --

THE COURT: Which document?

MR. ILES: Exhibit 1.

THE COURT: Yeah, but of March --

MR. ILES: March 29th.

THE COURT: Yeah. And -- and for the record, my

entry, although I notice now my entry has the wrong date.

MR. TEKULVE: I was going to bring that to the

Court's attention with references to that. March 29, '14

should be --

THE COURT: It should be '12?

MR. TEKULVE: -- '13.

THE COURT: I thought it was '12?

MR. TEKULVE: '12? I'm sorry, '12.

THE COURT: Yeah, so -- but -- but we talked about

that, and here's my notes, or here's my entry: "Mr. Iles

suggested there was a letter purportedly written by and sent to him by Mr. Skeene. Mr. Skeene authenticated the letter by admitting on the record that he did in fact write the letter and sent it to Mr. Iles. For this reason, there are no foundational objections that the Court needs to consider regarding that letter as part of the motion for summary judgment." But it's the letter of March 29, 2012.

MR. ILES: Yes, Your Honor. Number one, that --

THE COURT: Which is --

MR. ILES: -- letter shows there was no notice, no

30-days.

THE COURT: I -- I -- I get all of that.

MR. ILES: Okay. Without notice, Your Honor --

THE COURT: But what I'm saying is, is --

MR. ILES: -- I can't respond.

THE COURT: Can't respond to what?

MR. ILES: In other words, he's saying on the 29th

--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- he's writing me a letter --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- that contains two dumpsters that had

to be order at least a week, 2 weeks before that.

THE COURT: You -- you've claimed that already

though; haven't you?

MR. ILES: Please?

THE COURT: Haven't you claimed that? Isn't that

in your complaint?

ILES: I have never got that point across,

Your Honor. I said merely before you granted the motion for

summary judgment --

THE COURT: You mean the -- the hearing on the

motion for summary?

MR. ILES: Yes, be -- no. On -- it was a frivolous hearing which you put on the shelf.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ILES: At that time the --

THE COURT: I didn't grant a motion for summary

judgment.

MR. ILES: I know. You put it on the shelf.

THE COURT: No.

MR. ILES: No, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I didn't grant a motion for hearing on

summary judgment. I set a briefing schedule on a motion for

summary judgment.

MR. ILES: Yes. Okay.

THE COURT: All right?

MR. ILES: But on -- that was on a motion for

frivolousness on my part.

THE COURT: Correct. Right, because you had

failed to appear, and I was getting ready to dismiss you

out.

MR. ILES: Okay.THE COURT: Until you convinced the Court why you

didn't appear. Got that?

MR. ILES: Yes, Sir.

THE COURT: I'm just make sure you got --

MR. ILES: The -- the --


MR. ILES: So let's go back to Exhibit 1. Exhibit

1 shows there are no disputes from the Defendant.

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, what --

THE COURT: Okay. Now are we back to the summary

judgment?

MR. ILES: No, Your Honor. This is on -- on a --

THE COURT: Well, that -- that's what a summary

judgment is, is whether or not --

MR. TEKULVE: Could Mr. Iles stand at the

microphone, because I can't hear him when he's up there.

THE COURT: He can.

MR. ILES: We were talking. I'm sorry about that.

THE COURT: All right. But there --

MR. TEKULVE: But I didn't catch you, sir. I'm

asking you to be courteous.

MR. ILES: Yeah.

MR. TEKULVE: Thank you.

THE COURT: What we're -- what -- if we're back to

the summary judgment that's what -- that's what we're arguing today.

MR. ILES: Your Honor, my argument at that hearing

was --

THE COURT: Which hearing?

MR. ILES: The hearing on the frivolous argument.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Number one, I argued that -- that that

showed there was no frivolous on my part.

THE COURT: But we're not arguing that.

MR. ILES: Okay. But we're beyond that. Now, the

-- the document showed also because of my need for expert

witnesses --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- I need them to examine the premises

for contaminants and compare that to my injury.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you propose that you

get that done?

MR. ILES: I need the Court's permission to

arrange for a -- an inspection of 104 --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- with a expert witness to run tests.

Then, give those tests --

THE COURT: And -- and you're going to hire the

expert witness?

MR. ILES: I am.

1

2



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: Yes, Your Honor.


MR. ILES: I need that, and also I need another

expert witness once is that finished for finding it is

conclusive --

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- that the contaminants are my

problem.

THE COURT: Well, that -- that -- that should not

stop us from the motion for summary judgment, because what

the Court is going to do is decide whether there are or are

not any genuine issues of fact that need to go beyond the

Court deciding, which is what we're here for.

MR. ILES: Which is what I'm arguing. There are

issues.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So we've moved on then

from your need to amend the complaint?

MR. ILES: I -- I can't concede that at this

point.

THE COURT: You don't have to concede it, but the

thing is is you can't do one without the other.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: I can't go through this process and

then have you say you never addressed my request to amend



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

the complaint.

MR. ILES: Okay. That's -- is that what you're

addressing now? I'm sorry. I --

THE COURT: Well, I'm addressing both.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: But I don't do summary judgments until

we have the complaint clean. The complaint has to be

cleaned before I go into the summary judgment phase.

MR. ILES: What do you mean "clean"?

THE COURT: I don't do the summary judgment phase

and then hear you say I want to amend my complaint.

MR. ILES: Oh, no. That's the reason I'm bringing

it up before a decision is made --

THE COURT: I know.

MR. ILES: -- on the summary judgment is because

again using the Ohio Supreme Court ruling I must bring it up

--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- before the summary judgment.

THE COURT: I got that.

MR. ILES: And I must bring it up before.

THE COURT: So -- so are you ask -- what are you

asking?

MR. ILES: I'm saying based upon my learning

through their filing of the motion for summary judgment --

0



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: And -- and their attached exhibits and

affidavits?

MR. ILES: Yes. Number one, on those exhibits and

affidavits --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- they are not educational as to the

intent. They're not marked. They're not referenced at all.

They're just pictures.

THE COURT: Well, I'll decide that.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: If -- if it's relevant --

MR. ILES: I can't --

THE COURT: -- evidence.

MR. ILES: I can't decipher them.THE COURT: I'll -- I have to decide whether

that's relevant evidence that I can consider on the summary

judgment.

MR. ILES: All right. {Rule 56 requires most favorable to non-moving party}THE COURT: I -- I mean it's not important --

MR. ILES: Okay. Your Honor, I've lost me.

THE COURT: -- what they mean to you.

MR. ILES: I've lost me, and I apologize. My

reason for bringing up the amended is because --

THE COURT: The amended complaint?

MR. ILES: The amended complaint is because in



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

this document looking at the document --

THE COURT: The document is what Mr. Tekulve

filed.

MR. ILES: -- this is his --

THE COURT: Motion for summary judgment.

MR. ILES: -- motion for summary judgment --

THE COURT: Okay. Go on.

MR. ILES: -- with the attachments. Looking at

those attachments and my memory of the premises --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ILES: -- the premises have been --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- modified.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: In addition, it -- the -- the documents

show there is no damage. It shows my personal property.

Now, when was it taken?

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: I have no idea.

THE COURT: So how -- how does that make you want

to amend your complaint? That's what I'm lost.

MR. ILES: I need more time for discovery.

THE COURT: Huh-huh.

MR. ILES: To put it as -- as clear as I can.

THE COURT: Okay. We --



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

MR. ILES: I need my experts to go in and see on

my personal injury claim if their conduct --

THE COURT: Do you have a personal injury claim?

MR. ILES: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Okay. How would that -- okay. Go on.

Keep going.

MR. ILES: On the personal injury claim from my

understanding the way it should be, I can't make that claim

and make it anything -- any more effective than anybody

else.

THE COURT: Were --

MR. ILES: An expert with credentials --

THE COURT: I have a wrongful eviction.

MR. ILES: Yes, in addition to wrongful eviction

is --

THE COURT: Where is the personal injury part?

MR. ILES: Personal injury? I don't know the

number. Do you have the number?

THE COURT: Let me look here.

MR. ILES: I can go through the complaint.

THE COURT: Do you have a number?

MR. ILES: I can go through the complaint. I have

a copy here.

THE COURT: Yeah. Because I have -- Well, while

you're looking, Mr. Iles, tell me -- are you asking the



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

Court for leave to file an amended complaint or do you just

want to go ahead and finish your arguing -- your arguments

on your motion for summary judgment and see how the Court

rules?

MR. ILES: I don't want to rule on -- I don't want

to deprive the Defense --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- of an opportunity. The --

THE COURT: I don't -- just -- I mean, no offense.

MR. ILES: Okay. To answer your question, Your

Honor --

THE COURT: Just answer that.

MR. ILES: -- what I prefer to do is amend this

complaint --


MR. ILES: -- and bring up the matter of -- of

spoliation of evidence --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- and the discovery capabilities of

having an expert to go into 104 and just test for the --

THE COURT: Is that under the spolization --

spoliation claim?

MR. ILES: Yes. Yes. Well, basically in Mr.

Skeene's dissertation about what Pam told him --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

MR. ILES: -- that the clothing that was left

there she did not want -- not we. She did not want because

they were moldy and something else, some other description.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: Which clearly indicates they were

saturated with a contaminant that may very well be the same

contaminates that have got my lungs that have half capacity

right now.

THE COURT: Here's what I want to know. You --

you -- tell me why you think you could not have made this

claim back when you filed the complaint on March 7th of

2013.

MR. ILES: I didn't know he was going to change

the evidence.

THE COURT: Explain that to me. What do you know

today or a couple of weeks ago that you didn't know prior to

today's hearing that makes you want to amend your complaint?

MR. ILES: He has modified the interior.

THE COURT: He, mister -- mister --

MR. ILES: Mr. Skeene --


MR. ILES: -- or somebody. I don't know if it was

Mr. Skeene.

THE COURT: And how do you know that?

MR. ILES: By looking at the pictures.



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: And when did you first get the

pictures?

MR. ILES: Through his motion for --

THE COURT: Summary judgment?

MR. ILES: -- summary judgment.

THE COURT: And when did you receive that about?

Because I have -- I have pictures attached. I have pictures

attached to Mr. Tekulve's answer of Mr. Skeene's back filed

-- Defendant Dennis Skeene -- back -- filed back on -- man

oh mighty. Why --

MR. TEKULVE: April 14th.

THE COURT: What is it? April 14th?

MR. TEKULVE: April 14th.

THE COURT: Yeah, April 14th. I have those same

pictures, some of those same pictures. The same pictures,

Mr. Tekulve, maybe?

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, there may be some of the

same pictures. I -- I can't remember but I'll look. And

they're the same --

THE COURT: I'm looking at them along with the CD

copies, except --

MR. TEKULVE: Right. That's April 14th.

THE COURT: -- filed April 14th.

MR. TEKULVE: I was thinking of the -- I was

looking to see -- no. The December 31st interrogatory



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

response, his first set of interrogatories --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TEKULVE: -- had no documents attached except

one because Mr. Iles hadn't asked for any production of

documents. Then he did later send his second set of

interrogatories and requested documents. And we sent all of

those to him --

THE COURT: In April.

MR. TEKULVE: -- April 14th.

THE COURT: That's when you filed them?

MR. TEKULVE: The set -- our answer to his second

set of interrogatories filed with this Court, April 14th --

THE COURT: Right. So --

MR. TEKULVE: -- contained all of the documents.

He got the same thing we filed with the Court in addition to the original CD -- copies of the CDs.

THE COURT: So what I'm asking you is, Mr.

Tekulve, what Mr. Iles is telling the Court gave him

information about a new claim today was actually information that you filed with this Court on April 14th?

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, I -- I don't know about

the information --

THE COURT: Or the pictures?

MR. TEKULVE: -- when he received that

information, but he got the pictures of --



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: The pictures were filed along with

your client's answer on April 14th?

MR. TEKULVE: Of 2014.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. TEKULVE: March 29th of 2012, Mr. Iles as --

when we were here in June was --

THE COURT: 2012?

MR. TEKULVE: The March 29 letter from Mr. Skeene

--

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TEKULVE: -- March 29, 2012, that when we were

here in June we acknowledged freely that Mr. Skeene, all

through that letter --

THE COURT: No, right.

MR. TEKULVE: In that letter Mr. Skeene -- pardon

me.

THE COURT: Sound like Mr. Dean.

MR. TEKULVE: Mr. Skeene indicated that he had

Cleaned the premises up and needed two dumpsters. So he's

known for --

THE COURT: Yeah. No.

MR. TEKULVE: -- two years and five months,

almost.

THE COURT: No, but Mr. Skeene is alleging that --

that the pictures of the inside of the building have created



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

New found information for him that causes him some concerns

About the destructibility of -- of the building, or the lack of it. And all I'm saying is, Mr. Iles is saying that as a result of what you submitted on your motion for summary judgment filed June 30, 2014, that those attachments told him he may -- he may have a new issue or issues that he wants to add to his complaint that many -- that that those pictures that are attached to your MSJ were attached to your response in April of 2014.

MR. TEKULVE: The same thing, exactly.

THE COURT: Yeah, that's what I was --

MR. TEKULVE: The exhibit, nothing new was added

--

THE COURT: Okay. Okay.

MR. TEKULVE: -- in terms of we -- we -- I copied

the discovery responses --

THE COURT: So you agree with that, that --

MR. TEKULVE: Well, I -- I supplied the Court the

discovery responses because it's pertinent evidence under --

THE COURT: And it's with the Court order.

MR. TEKULVE: -- 56 (C).

THE COURT: And the Court order, and the Court --

oh. Yeah, you mean for the summary judgment?

MR. TEKULVE: Right.

THE COURT: Yeah, but the Court ordered the



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

response as a result of his -- his new interrogatories?

MR. TEKULVE: Right. We had a scheduling order,

and again the motion to compel that, you know, he filed his

--

THE COURT: Right. Right. Well --

MR. TEKULVE: That went to the first set of

interrogatories, which that was --

THE COURT: Rather than address the motion to

compel, what the Court said was, You file your new

Interrogatories, Mr. Iles, and Mr. Tekulve will respond to

them second set. And you did.

MR. TEKULVE: Right.

THE COURT: On April 14th?

MR. TEKULVE: Right.

THE COURT: And you attached color -- for the

Court anyway -- pictures: interior, exterior, certain rooms.

MR. TEKULVE: He got the same thing the Court got

except he didn't get photocopies of the discs. He actually

got the discs.

THE COURT: Understood.

MR. ILES: I --

THE COURT: Oh, no. He says he didn't.

MR. ILES: May I, Your Honor? May I?

THE COURT: But hold on. Hold on.

MR. ILES: I have evidence that those discs were



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

not in the package.

THE COURT: Okay. Regardless, I just want to --

what I'm asking is that -- that the epiphany that Mr. Iles

has today with what your attachments were to your MSJ were

attached to your discovery response back in April?

MR. TEKULVE: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Now, you had these photos

because that's what you're alluding to, the photos which

told you about things that you would like to amend your

complaint on. You said as a result of what you received

from Tekulve's motion for summary judgment that was filed

June 30th, new issues came to light. What I'm asking you,

Mr. Iles, is those same pictures were sent to you April 14th of 2014. Why -- why today do you want to amend your

complaint with when what you saw in April should have given

you the same idea?

MR. ILES: Number one, this Court -- the Court on

the scheduling order ordered --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: He was -- Mr. Tekulve was to file his

motion.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: I was to respond.

THE COURT: That's not what I'm asking.

MR. ILES: Then --



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: You -- you got these. You got this

information from back in April.

MR. ILES: I -- I -- I -- I'm building to that,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, you're building

backward. I need to build --

MR. ILES: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Number one, he

was to submit his document which he did on his --

THE COURT: His motion.

MR. ILES: -- his motion. Number two, I was to

respond --


MR. ILES: -- which I did.

THE COURT: All right. You did.

MR. ILES: And number three --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- he had until the 25th --

THE COURT: To file a response.

MR. ILES: -- to -- to counter me.

THE COURT: That's right.

MR. ILES: Which he did not.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: Now, the Court ordered that any

additional orders or any additional motions could not be

submitted to the Court until those procedures were done, and KATHY SIMPSON, Official Court Reporter


270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

that puts here today.

THE COURT: I'm -- I'm talking about from April,

you had all of May. You had all of June, and you had all of

July to look at those pictures that Mr. Tekulve submitted to you. And during that 2 or 3 -- 2 and a half, 3-month period

you could have said to the Court by motion before I set the

summary judgment.

MR. TEKULVE: Well, in fact, Judge, we were here

on June 13th and he didn't bring any of this up. He didn't

complain about discovery. He had everything he needed.

THE COURT: Well, he didn't complain about

amending his complaint.

MR. TEKULVE: Right.

THE COURT: That's what I'm talking --

MR. TEKULVE: He brought none of this up.

THE COURT: I -- the Court set -- the Court set

the scheduling order on June 13th. So if I accept your

argument that you couldn't file any other motions, and what

it says is, "To file any other dispositive motion not

specifically contemplated by this order you must first file

a motion to obtain leave of court."

MR. ILES: Which I'm doing.

THE COURT: Well, what I'm asking you is, You got

this April 14th. And I understand it takes you some time to

look it through, but you had the rest of April, all of May,



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

and halfway through June to determine that you might have a

spoliation -- spoil -- I can't say it. Say it.

MR. ILES: Spoilization.

THE COURT: Spoil -- I don't know if it's spoil --

is it spolization.

MR. ILES: Spoilazation.

THE COURT: Is it spoilazation?

MR. ILES: Spoilazation.

THE COURT: I don't think it is.

MR. ILES: It doesn't even sound like it's a real

word.

THE COURT: Spoliation. Spoliation is what it is.

MR. ILES: Spoilazation. However --

THE COURT: I don't think there's a "Z."

MR. ILES: In my --

THE COURT: Spoliation claim, and you didn't make

that. If -- if during that -- you have all of April, the

rest of April, all of May, and part of June you could have

filed a motion with the Court asking the Court to amend your

complaint. That's what I'm asking.

MR. ILES: Your Honor, if you're saying that

because of some statutory limitations I've missed?

THE COURT: No, no. I'm saying you had what you

needed April 14th to determine that you may want to add a

claim to your complaint. Because everything you've got in



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

Mr. Tekulve's attachments for summary judgment, you received on his answers in April. So all I'm saying to you, Mr.Iles, is you had -- you had -- if you received all of these exhibits April 14th of 2014, you had the rest of April, all

of May, and up to June 13th when we set the scheduling order

to tell the Court, I think I might want to amend my

complaint. That's all I'm saying to you. So, the fact that

you indicated to this Court that this revelation of new

issues you want to add to your complaint only occurred after

Mr. Tekulve filed his motion for summary judgment June 30th

of 2014 is not correct.

MR. ILES: As I stated earlier, Your Honor, I am

not trained in any way.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. ILES: And the only thing I can do is go --

THE COURT: Is that correct though? And then I'll

let you explain.

MR. ILES: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Is it correct that you had in April --

MR. ILES: Okay. Let -- let me just -- let me set

that aside for one second --


MR. ILES: -- if you don't mind?

MR. TEKULVE: Well, I'd ask that the Court make

him answer the Court's question.



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

THE COURT: I would like it.

MR. TEKULVE: He don't want to answer.

THE COURT: I would like you to answer, and then

I'll let you explain, Mr. Iles. I always do. All I'm

asking you is, Did you have in April what you -- what you

received June 30th? Because I don't see anything really

different in the attachments to the motion for summary

judgment than I see from Mr. Skeene's answers to your second

set of interrogatories. I'm not trying to ambush you.

MR. ILES: I understand. I understand.

THE COURT: But would you agree that most

everything that were in those answers are in the summary

judgment?

MR. ILES: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: Now, the only plus I have to put onto

that caveat is --


MR. ILES: -- the fact that when I'm waiting for

the motion to compel to be heard, that's when I could have

introduced anything. And I have a complete document. In

fact, a ream of paper showing of why the motion to compel

was so important.

THE COURT: Well, I -- I feel like you're ducking

a little bit.



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

MR. ILES: I wouldn't do that.

THE COURT: Because the motion to compel wasn't

heard because I granted you an opportunity to file a second

set of interrogatories. I -- I ordered --

MR. ILES: I did.

THE COURT: -- Mr. Skeene to respond. And then

when I was going to ask you, Are you happy with the

discovery? You didn't show up twice.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: So, I mean, I'm not mad. I'm not mad

that you didn't show up. I'm just saying that -- that took

the proceeding in a different course.

MR. ILES: Any --

THE COURT: So --

MR. ILES: Any delays I've caused this Court was

never intentional.

THE COURT: I -- I -- I'm not saying that.

MR. ILES: You know, as a result of --

THE COURT: I -- I use my words freely.

MR. ILES: Thank you.

THE COURT: If I thought it was intentional I'd

say, You intentionally didn't show. But -- but I can't ask

you --

MR. ILES: But let me answer your question.

THE COURT: I can't ask you if you're satisfied



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

with your discovery when you don't show up.

MR. ILES: Okay. To the best I can answer your

question, I had time to motion the Court and say, Hey.

There's evidence -- spoliation of evidence, except --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: In the hearing for frivolous conduct --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- I stood to this Court and said, Your

Honor, I have one document that will prove every claim in

the complaint.

THE COURT: Yeah, the letter?

MR. ILES: The letter.

THE COURT: I know. And -- and I addressed it.

MR. ILES: You addressed both of them.

THE COURT: And you.

MR. ILES: They both acknowledged.

THE COURT: Yeah, that that letter I could -- I

could -- that -- that Mr. Skeene admitted that that's his

letter, so we eliminated that foundational requirements as

it relates only to 56 -- Civil Rule 56.

MR. ILES: Based upon that conclusion and that

thinking --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. ILES: -- the motion for summary judgment --

THE COURT: Uh-huh.



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

MR. ILES: -- the opposition that I filed --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ILES: -- based upon that document shows there

are no defense on their part for -- for trespass --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: -- conversion --

THE COURT: That -- that's fine. Now, you're

arguing the summary judgment.

MR. ILES: Yes.

THE COURT: Which is fine. I'm ready to finish

that argument.

MR. ILES: Okay.

THE COURT: You're the one that made the -- the

request to amend your complaint. If you remove that

request, then -- then we're ready to finish this up. I'll

take it under advisement and issue a written ruling on the

issues that are before the Court.

MR. ILES: Your Honor --

THE COURT: You're -- you're -- you're --

MR. ILES: -- can -- can we reserve that to a -- a

--

THE COURT: Reserve what?

MR. ILES: That requirement.

THE COURT: And what requirement?

MR. TEKULVE: Well, Your Honor, we're going to ask



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

that he not be permitted. I mean, if he files a written

motion as is required under the rule, entertain it or --

THE COURT: Written motion? What?

MR. TEKULVE: Address it.

THE COURT: What?

MR. TEKULVE: To -- to amend his complaint. The

Court gave him back in February --

THE COURT: I know.

MR. TEKULVE: -- a deadline.

THE COURT: I know. Now, he --

MR. TEKULVE: We're now --

THE COURT: Now --

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, he was 15 minutes late.

THE COURT: Now --

MR. TEKULVE: I spoke for about 3 minutes. He's

an hour and ten minutes in.

THE COURT: Well, because he's raised -- I mean,

unfortunately, Mr. Tekulve, when you're unrepresented -- I

can't help him, but I can't just ignore him.

MR. TEKULVE: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Because the Court of Appeals is going

to give him --

MR. TEKULVE: I understand that, but if we can

confine it to Rule 56, that would be appreciated.

THE COURT: Well, I'd like to do that, but when he



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

raises an issue I can't just gloss over it, because if I

don't -- if I don't and he loses, he goes up and says he

made a motion to amend his complaint and I didn't address

it. And he's right. And to his credit -- Get out of my

way, Mr. Iles.

MR. ILES: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: To his credit in February when he

asked to file that motion but never filed it, he didn't have

the April exhibits which would have alerted him to an

additional issue that he may want to file an amended

complaint on. So the question is, do you -- do you want to

-- do you want to file a written motion to amend your

complaint, you're more than welcome to do that.

MR. ILES: With a memorandum?

THE COURT: With a memorandum.

MR. ILES: Thank you, Sir.

THE COURT: Now, do you -- do you want to go ahead

with the remainder of this summary judgment, or what are you

asking the Court? This is the dilemma I find myself in, Mr.

Tekulve and Mr. Skeene. If he makes that motion, you know,

do I go ahead and resolve the MSJ, or do I -- I mean, I have

to -- I have --

MR. TEKULVE: Well, Your Honor, that's all that's

pending for the Court's consideration.

THE COURT: No, I know. But -- but is it fair to



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

allow him to amend, but then possibly throw out some of his

claims until he has an amended complaint?

MR. TEKULVE: Yes. I mean, this -- this case has

been pending for since March of 2013.

THE COURT: But -- but that has nothing to do with

it. It has something to do with the amended complaint. It

doesn't have anything to do with the procedural posture.

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, whatever -- whatever

ruling you make --

THE COURT: I know.

MR. TEKULVE: -- we have respect and we

understand.

THE COURT: I know. I know you do. I'm just

asking.

MR. TEKULVE: Every minute that ticks by increases

our claim for frivolous conduct.


MR. TEKULVE: And this is prejudicing Mr. Skeene

every minute.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, there was an opportunity

to dismiss without prejudice too. So I mean, what do you

do? Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

MR. ILES: That's a good solution, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, what I'll do is let you finish

your -- you should be close to finish your argument on your



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

claims, correct? Then what I'll do is let you -- you finish

your argument on what you filed. I'll let Mr. Tekulve have

the final word. I'll take that under advisement. If you

want to file a motion to amend your complaint with a

memorandum, I'll set a briefing schedule on that while I

have the MSJ under advisement. All right?

MR. ILES: One point, Your Honor.


MR. ILES: On all consideration is the matter of

notice.

THE COURT: On the wrongful eviction?

MR. ILES: On -- on the wrongful eviction, on

everything --

THE COURT: On civil.

MR. ILES: -- on the disposal of the property.

All of that has been without any notice.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ILES: And the minimum requirement on a notice

--


MR. ILES: -- even if the storm hit was 24 hours.


MR. ILES: He can't just walk on the property.


MR. ILES: And he did not give notice by his own



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

admission.

THE COURT: All right. Fair enough.

MR. ILES: And then when the 29th letter was sent

to me, there was no notice.


MR. ILES: So he has never sent any kind of a

notice. And by law in the State of Ohio the landlord must

notify the tenant.


MR. ILES: And he has not.

THE COURT: All right. Fair enough. Thank you.

MR. ILES: Thank you, folks.

THE COURT: Final word, Mr. Tekulve?

MR. ILES: I sure appreciate your indulgence, Sir.

MR. TEKULVE: Your Honor, I'm not sure what to

make of Mr. Iles. His memory is very faulty. He has made

numerous misrepresentations, accused me as an officer of the Court and Mr. Skeene as engaging in fraud. Virtually all of what he said to my -- to my way of assessing this is without legal basis, and it's frankly gibberish. We need to confine ourselves, Your Honor, to the facts in the law here. Rule 56 is very clear. The Court may consider evidence as set forth in Civil Rule 56(C). Now, he's submitted nothing.We've copied his pleadings, answers to interrogatories, our affidavit to show the Court the evidence. We've laid outKATHY SIMPSON, Official Court Reporter


270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

Historically what has taken place. We've referenced the

Court to Revised Code 5301.11 which wasn't repealed in 1953

or 4, that's its effective date.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. TEKULVE: It hasn't been modified since. So,

you know, I sort of grit my teeth and listen to him talk.

Nonetheless, Your Honor, it is clear. There is no genuine

issue of material fact. March 2, 2012, these premises at

104 Broadway owned by Mr. Skeene were -- were -- were

rendered uninhabitable. The tenancy was terminated by

operation of law. And I don't know what his other gripes

and illusions to half of a lung working, and -- but I -- I

think -- you know, they didn't reside -- the evidence is

clear in our affidavit and what we submitted that no one

resided at that place after March 2, 2012. I'm not sure,

you know, if on March 12, 2012, he got some illness. I'm

not sure what it relates to.


MR. TEKULVE: There's no evidence submitted, Your

Honor, in support of his claim to contradict what was set

forth in our affidavit, that there was no wrongful eviction.

There was no conversion. There was no invasion of privacy,

and there's no medical problem. So we would ask you, Your

Honor --




270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

MR. TEKULVE: Looking at the law in the absence of

dispute as to material fact to grant the motion.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Tekulve.

I'll take the matter under advisement. Mr. Iles, if you

decide to file a motion for leave to amend your complaint,

file it. We'll call Mr. Tekulve and set a briefing

schedule. I'm -- I'm -- I'm finished.

MR. ILES: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right? All right. Thank you.

(Hearing concluded.)



270 Main Street

Batavia, Ohio 45103

(513) 732-7103

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF OHIO :

: SS

COUNTY OF CLERMONT:

I, Kathy S. Simpson, official court reporter for

Court of Common Pleas, Clermont County, Ohio, do hereby

certify that the foregoing transcript was duly taken

by digital audio equipment and thereafter transcribed into

typewriting by computer under my supervision, and that the

same is true and correct in all respects as transcribed from said equipment.

I further certify that I am not counsel,

attorney, relative or employee of any of the parties

hereto, or in any way interested in the within action.

_______________________________

Kathy S. Simpson, RPR

Notary Public - State of Ohio

1

attachment to affaidavit ti disqualify transcript of oral argument

Documents