[Cite as In re Guardianship of Moton, 2011-Ohio-809.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF 

THE GUARDIANSHIP OF 

WILLIE BERNEASE MOTON 

 

 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 10CA82 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of 

Common Pleas, Probate Division, 

 Case No. 2007-2021 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 22, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellee For Appellant 

Richland County Probate Court Ronald E. Moton, Sr., Sibling of Ward 

50 Park Avenue East 293 Second Avenue 

Mansfield, Ohio 44903 Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

 

{¶1} Appellant Ronald E. Moton, Sr. appeals the June 3, 2010 Judgment Entry 

entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, which 

dismissed his objections and/or exceptions to the April 19, 2010 final guardian’s 

account. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 

{¶2} On April 3, 2007, an Application for Appointment of Guardian of Alleged 

Incompetent Willie Bernease Moton (“the Ward”) was filed in the Richland County Court 

of Common Pleas, Probate Division. Appellant is one of the Ward’s children. The trial 

court scheduled a hearing on the application for April 17, 2007. Notices of the hearing 

were sent via certified mail to Appellant and his siblings. A court investigator filed a 

report on the proposed guardianship on April 16, 2007, recommending guardianship 

over the Ward’s person and estate. On April 27, 2007, the trial court appointed Martina 

Goines as guardian over the Ward’s person, and Attorney Edith A. Gilliland as guardian 

of the estate. 

{¶3} Martina Goines filed a motion for removal of Attorney Gilliland as guardian 

of the estate on July 19, 2007. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on 

August 15, 2007. Subsequently, the trial court appointed Attorney Joseph Jerger as 

interim guardian of the estate. Attorney Jerger was later appointed successor guardian. 

On September 18, 2007, Appellant filed a memorandum with the trial court, questioning 

some issues regarding the Ward. Appellant also asked the court to remove the Ward’s 

personal guardian. The trial court conducted a three day hearing on Appellant’s 

concerns. Via Judgment Entry filed July 10, 2008, the trial court ordered Martina 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 3

Goines be immediately removed as guardian of the Ward’s person, found Appellant 

unsuitable to serve as successor guardian of the Ward’s person, and appointed 

Attorney Jerger as the successor guardian of the Ward’s person in addition to being 

guardian of the Ward’s estate. 

{¶4} On February 25, 2010, Attorney Jerger filed a Motion for Authority to Code 

the Ward, seeking a court order amending his Letters of Guardianship to permit him to 

code the Ward and discontinue nutrition, hydration and respiration necessary to sustain 

life. The trial court scheduled the matter for hearing on March 4, 2010. Appellant filed 

an objection to Attorney Jerger’s motion as well as Attorney Jerger’s account statement. 

Via Judgment Entry filed March 4, 2010, the trial court granted Attorney Jerger’s Motion 

to Amend his Letters of Guardianship, authorizing him to code the Ward as a “Do Not 

Resuscitate, Comfort Care Only” patient. The trial court also ordered Attorney Jerger 

not to discontinue or deny nutrition and/or hydration necessary to sustain the Ward’s life 

without further order from the court. 

{¶5} Attorney Jerger filed a guardian’s account pursuant to R.C. 2109.30 on 

March 18, 2010. Attorney Jerger also filed an application for authority to pay attorney 

fees on the same day. Appellant filed objections to the application as well as a motion 

to have the account audited. Via Judgment Entry filed March 25, 2010, the trial court 

denied Appellant’s request a certified public accountant be designated to audit the 

Ward’s account at the Ward’s expense. Attorney Jerger filed an application to terminate 

the guardianship after the Ward died on March 28, 2010. Attorney Jerger filed the final 

guardian’s account on April 19, 2010. The trial court issued a Judgment Entry on June 

3, 2010, dismissing Appellant’s objections and/or exceptions to the final account. 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 4

{¶6} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals. 

{¶7} Appellant's brief in this matter is far from being in compliance with the 

Appellate Rules. 

{¶8} App. R. 16(A), which sets forth the requirements for a brief filed with this 

Court, provides: 

{¶9} “The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the 

order indicated, all of the following: 

{¶10} “(1) A table of contents, with page references. 

{¶11} “(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other 

authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited. 

{¶12} “(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with 

reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected. 

{¶13} “(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the 

assignments of error to which each issue relates. 

{¶14} “(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the 

course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below. 

{¶15} “(6) A statement of the facts relevant to the assignments of error 

presented for review, with appropriate references to the record * * * 

{¶16} “(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect 

to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the 

contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which 

appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary. 

{¶17} “(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.” App.R. 16. 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 5

{¶18} Appellant’s brief does not contain: 1) a table of contents; 2) a table of 

cases; 3) a statement of assignment(s) of error; 4) a statement of issues; 5) a statement 

of the case; or 6) a statement of facts with reference to the record. 1

{¶19} We find Appellant's brief does not minimally satisfy the requirements of 

App. R. 16; therefore, is noncompliant. Absent minimal compliance with App. R. 16(A), 

this Court cannot reasonably respond to Appellant's claims, and may, in its discretion, 

disregard those claims. See, Foster v. Board of Elections (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 213, 

228, 373 N.E.2d 1274. Such deficiencies are tantamount to failure to file a brief. 

Pursuant to the authority granted to this Court under App. R. 18(C), we dismiss 

Appellant’s appeal for failure to file a brief. 

{¶20} Furthermore, Appellant’s brief does not contain an acknowledgment of 

service or a proof of service upon the proper opposing party as required by App.R. 13. 

Pursuant to App.R. 13(D), this Court cannot consider any pleading which does not 

contain “an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the 

form of a statement of the date and manner of service and of the names of the persons 

served, certified by the person who made service.” Appellant’s proof of service 

indicates he served his brief on the Richland County Prosecutor’s Office rather than on 

the Guardian or the Guardian’s counsel. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal 

 

1

 Appellant’s only reference is to Exhibits attached to his purported brief, not to the trial 

court record. 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 6

for want of prosecution. Education Resources Inst. v. Grover, Stark App. 

No.2003CA00379, 2004-Ohio-3057, ¶ 8. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Delaney, J. concurs, 

Edwards, J. dissents 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 7

EDWARDS, J., DISSENTING OPINION 

{¶21} I dissent from the majority’s decision to dismiss appellant’s appeal for 

failure to comply with App.R. 16(A) and for failing to contain an acknowledgment of 

service or proof of service as required by App.R. 13. 

{¶22} With respect to App.R. 16(A), I believe that while appellant’s brief fails to 

comply with App.R. 16, the gist of appellant’s arguments can be gleaned from his brief, 

and, in fact, we conducted oral arguments thereon. I would, therefore, address 

appellant’s arguments. 

{¶23} As for the lack of proof of service, as noted by the majority in its Opinion, 

appellant incorrectly served his brief on the Richland County Prosecutor’s Office rather 

than on the Guardian or the Guardian’s counsel. I would continue this matter to allow 

appellant to serve his brief on the Guardian or his counsel and would then establish a 

further briefing schedule as well as allow appellee to request de novo oral arguments. 

s/ Judge Julie A. Edwards____________

Judge Julie A. Edwards 

 
Richland County, Case No. 10CA82 8

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF : 

 : 

THE GUARDIANSHIP OF : 

 : 

WILLIE BERNEASE MOTON : 

 : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

 : 

 : Case No. 10CA82 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, we dismiss Appellant’s 

appeal for want of prosecution. Costs to Appellant. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY