Fifth Third Bank v. Allen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Fifth Third Bank v. Allen, 2002-Ohio-2271.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF LUCAS COUNTY Fifth Third Bank Court of Appeals No. L-01-1324 Appellee Trial Court No. CVF-00-13324 v. Richard J. Allen DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellant Decided: May 10, 2002 * * * * * Barbara Miciul, for appellee. Richard J. Allen, Pro se. * * * * * KNEPPER, J. {¶1} Court This is an appeal from a judgment of the Toledo Municipal that granted the motion appellee Fifth Third Bank. for summary Pursuant to 6th judgment filed by Dist.Loc.App.R. 12(C), this case is assigned to the accelerated calendar. {¶2} On August 8, 2000, appellee Fifth Third Bank filed a complaint against appellant in Toledo Municipal Court to recover the balance due of $9,743.97 on a promissory note appellant had executed on January 18, 1998. 2001, the trial court granted By judgment entry filed June 14, appellee's motion for summary judgment. {¶3} On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his request to have a friend who is not a licensed attorney represent him in this action. Appellant also asserts that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the same matter was currently being adjudicated in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Finally, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. {¶4} Upon thorough review of appellant's pro-se brief, we find that appellant has failed to support his claimed errors with any relevant references to the trial court record or citations to applicable legal authority. Accordingly, appellant's first, second and third assignments of error are not well-taken. {¶5} On consideration whereof, this court finds that substantial justice was done the party complaining and the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Fifth Third v. Allen L-01-1324 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98. James R. Sherck, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Richard W. Knepper, J. ____________________________ 2. Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J. CONCUR. JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE 3.
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.
