Mayer v. Medancic

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Mayer v. Medancic, 2001-Ohio-8782.] COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO JUDGES MARCIA A. MAYER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, HON. DONALD R. FORD, P.J., HON. JUDITH A. CHRISTLEY, J., HON. DIANE V. GRENDELL, J. - vs MLADEN MEDANCIC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, CASE NOS. 2000-G-2311, 2000-G-2312, and 2000-G-2313 JAMES CONRAD, ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, Appellant. DISSENTING OPINION GRENDELL, J. While I agree with several portions of the majority s decision, I must respectfully dissent for the following reasons. I disagree with the majority s ruling on appellants second assignment of error (the trial court s error in ordering a set-off) and third assignment of error (the trial court s ordering foreclosure). 2 On its face, ordering the sale of appellants property to pay $124,500 to appellees when appellees owe appellants a $148,000 judgment from the same court is inequitable and contrary to basic principles of judicial economy. Under the circumstances, the trial court s failure to order a set-off and ordering foreclosure constitute abuses of discretion. For these reasons, as well as for clarification of the mathematical issue raised by appellants fourth assignment of error, I would reverse and remand this case. ________________________________________ JUDGE DIANE V. GRENDELL

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.