[Cite as Gemperline v. Franano , 2021-Ohio-2394.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MICHAEL L. GEMPERLINE Plaintiff-Appellant

-vsDOMENICO FRANANO, et al. Defendants-Appellees JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P. J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20 CV H 03 0166 JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 14, 2021

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee Franano JOSHUA J. BROWN BRIAN L. WILDERMUTH CASSONE LAW OFFICES, LLC SUBASHI, WILDERMUTH & JUSTICE 5086 North High Street THE GREENE TOWN CENTER Suite A 50 Chestnut Street, Suite 230 Columbus, Ohio 43214 Dayton, Ohio 45440 For Defendant-Appellee Slavik MARK HOWARD GAMS GALLAGHER GAMS TALLAN BARNES & LITTRELL 471 East Broad Street, 19 th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3872Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 2
For Defendant-Appellee Mount C. JOSEPH McCULLOUGH WHITE, GETGEY and MEYER CO., LPA 7587 Central Park Boulevard, Suite B Mason, Ohio 45040 For Defendant-Appellee Johnson DAVID W ORLANDINI COLLINS, ROCHE, UTLEY & GARNER 655 Metro Place South, Suite 200 Dublin, Ohio 43017 For Defendant-Appellee Daly JOSHUA R. BILLS NICHOLAS S. BOBB PELINI, CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS, LLC 5880 Innovation Drive Dublin, Ohio 43016 For Defendant-Appellee Houk TERRENCE J. KENNEALLY SEAN M. KENNEALLY LAW OFFICES OF TERRENCE J. KENNEALLY & ASSOCIATES CO. River Terrace Building 19111 Detroit Road, Suite 200 Rocky River, Ohio 44116 For Defendant-Appellee Miceli GARY G. YASHKO LAW OFFICE OF GARY G. YASHKO, LLC 611 Gradall Court Powell, Ohio 43065Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 3
Wise, J. {¶1} Appellant Michael Gemperline appeals from the December 15, 2020 Judgment Entry by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Ap pellees are Domenico Franano, Kerry Daly, William Houk, Gary R. Johnson, Su san Miceli, and Rebecca Mount. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} On January 1, 2018, Appellant took office as a Trustee for Libe rty Township. {¶3} In October of 2018, Appellant voted to request an EMS proposal from Delaware County to replace the township EMS. {¶4} In 2019, Appellees, which opposed the plan, gathered signatures for a petition to remove him from office allegedly making statements that Appellant wanted to replace Liberty Township EMS with Delaware County services, tha t “Liberty Township EMS will be harmed,” and “people will die” because of Appellant ’s plan. {¶5} On July 2, 2019, pursuant to R.C. 3.07 and 3.08, a removal comp laint was filed in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The complai nt alleges that Appellant was in favor of replacing Liberty Township EMS with D elaware County EMS. Appellant denies this was his plan, and that another Trustee, S hyra Eichhorn, falsely attributed this plan to Appellant. {¶6} In August of 2019, Appellees’ removal complaint was voluntarily dismissed via stipulation. {¶7} On March 30, 2020, Appellant filed a complaint in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court against Appellees.Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 4 {¶8} On September 18, 2020, Appellant filed an amended complaint all eging: abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. {¶9} On October 1, 2020, Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss the Ame nded Complaint. Appellant did not file a motion in opposition. {¶10} On December 15, 2020, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry g ranting Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶11} On January 4, 2021, Appellant filed a notice of appeal raising the following three Assignments of Error: {¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING A 12(b)(1)[sic] MOTION TO DISMISS TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEES [sic] ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WH ICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED ON C OUNT 1: ABUSE OF PROCESS. {¶13} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING A 12(b)(1)[sic] MOTION TO DISMISS TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEES [sic] ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WH ICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED ON COUNT 2: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. {¶14} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING A 12(b)(1)[sic] MOTION TO DISMISS TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEES [sic] ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WH ICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED ON COUNT 3: DEFAMATION.”Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 5

a. Noerr-Pennington doctrine {¶15} As the trial court mentioned the Noerr-Pennington doctrine may apply in this situation, they specifically did not decide that issue. Therefo re, we will not rule on the applicability of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to the case at bar until the trial court has considered it. b. Standard of Review {¶16} This Court reviews judgments on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dis miss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under a de novo standard. Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio S t.3d 228, 229, 551 N.E.2d 981; Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford , 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶5. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency o f the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605 N.E.2d 378 (1992), citing Assn. for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger , 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 117, 537 N.E.2d 1292 (1989). In considering a m otion to dismiss, a trial court may not rely on allegations or evidence outside of the co mplaint. State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander , 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 (1997). Rather, the tr ial court may review only the complaint and may dismiss the case on ly if it appears beyond a doubt the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the p laintiff to recover. O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. , 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus. Unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not suffic ient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Schulman v. Cleveland (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 196, 198, 59 O.O.2d 196, 197, 283 N.E.2d 175, 176.Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 6

I. {¶17} In Appellant’s First Assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by granting Appellees’ 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Appe llant’s abuse of process claim. We agree. {¶18} In order to assert a claim of abuse of process a plaintiff must allege the following: (1) [A] legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause; (2) [T]he proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplis h an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed; and (3) [D]irect damage has resulted from the wrongful use of proce ss. Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 294, 298, 626 N.E.2d 115. {¶19} Simply, abuse of process occurs where someone attempts to achie ve through the use of the court that which the court is itself pow erless to order.” Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 264, 271, 662 N.E.2d 9. “In an abuse of process case, ‘the improper purpose usually takes the form o f coercion to obtain a collateral advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding i tself, such as the surrender of property or the payment of money, by the use of the process as a threat or a club.’” Id . “Abuse of process does not lie for the wrongful bringing of a n action, but for the improper use, or ‘abuse,’ of process.” Clermont Environmental Reclamation Co. v. Hancock , 16 Ohio App.3d 9, 11, 474 N.E.2d 357 (12 th Dist. 1984).Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 7 {¶20} It is undisputed in this case that the legal action initiated b y Appellees was brought in proper form and with probable cause. However, on app eal, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support, Appellant argues in the Amended Complaint the proceeding was brought to damage Appellant in ter ms of his finances, morale, and reputation, to do maximum damage to Appellant durin g an upcoming election, and intimidating Appellant to becoming a political al ly. “[O]n appeal, we must analyze whether the complaint sets forth sufficient facts to de monstrate that Appellees initiated legal action in this case in order to ‘accomplish an ulterior purpose for which [the action] was not designed.’” Sullivan v. Tuschman , 6 th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1373, 2007- Ohio-3569, ¶13 quoting Yaklevich , supra

. {¶21} In the case sub judice , the trial court ruled Appellant’s Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law for two reasons. First, the trial cour t held the Appellant failed to allege a further act in the use of the process not proper in th e regular conduct of the proceeding as required by Hubbard v. AASE Sales, LLC . In Hubbard , this Court found that “there was no evidence of ‘a further act in the use of pro cess not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hubbard v. AASE Sales, LLC , 5 th Dist. No. 17CAE070051, 2018-Ohio-2363, 104 N.E.3d 1027, ¶38 quoting Clermont Environmental Reclamation , supra , at 11, 474 N.E.2d 357. However, Hubbard can be distinguished from the case at bar. In Hubbard , the plaintiff appealed a directed verdict. Id . In the case sub judice , Appellant is appealing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The difference between a directed verdict motion and a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is procedural. Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 95,Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 8 551 N.E.2d 172, 174 (1990). A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is made, heard, a nd ruled on before the trial begins. Id . A motion for a directed verdict motion is made at trial after the evidence has been admitted. Id . In the case sub judice , Appellant has not had an opportunity to submit evidence of “a further act in the use of process not pro per in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hubbard at ¶38. Appellant has many discovery options for exposing the precise facts upon which allegations in the complaint are b ased and, if the pleadings are indeed a sham, Appellees may move for summary judgment purs uant to Civ.R. 56. Clermont Environmental Reclamation at 13. Though evidence of a further act in the use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding is necessary to prove the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulter ior purpose for which it was not designed, to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismis s a plaintiff need not allege how the process was abused in detail. Clermont Environmental Reclamation at 12. {¶22} The trial court also ruled the abuse of process failed because Appellant did not provide allegations beyond mere “labels and conclusions” as required by Fink v. Twentieth Century Homes, Inc ., 8 th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94519, 2010-Ohio-5486, ¶24. “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id . We have previously held: Under the notice pleadings requirements of Civ.R. 8(A)(1), the plaintiff only needs to plead sufficient, operative facts to su pport recovery under his claims. Doe v. Robinson , 6 th Dist. No. 1-07-1051, 2007-Ohio5746, 2007 WL 3120279, ¶17. Nevertheless, to constitute fair no tice, the complaint must still allege suffi cient underlying facts that re late to andDelaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 9
support the alleged claim, and may not simply state legal concl usions. See DeVore v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. , 32 Ohio App.2d 36, 38, 288 N.E.2d 202 (7 th Dist. 1972). Grossniklaus v. Waltman , 5 th Dist. Holmes No. 09CA15, 2010-Ohio2937, ¶26. {¶23} However, in the case sub judice , Appellant alleges the elements of abuse of process and specific facts which constituted those elements. Appellant’s Amended Complaint, which attempted to lay out an abuse-of-process claim against Appellees, contained the following pertinent allegations: 22. Defendants were unhappy that Gemperline would not become a political ally of theirs and that he continued to resist their political goals. Therefore, Defendants conspired, around this time, to do lifelo ng reputational damage to Gemperline.

... 24. Defendants consulted with a prominent law firm in Columbus, Ohio to determine whether Gemperline would have to personally p ay to defend himself in such an action, or whether such an action wou ld be covered by Liberty Township’s liability insurance. This is beca use defendants were seeking to damage Plaintiff Gemperline financia lly. They did not intend to go forward with the Section 3.07 action unles s Gemperline had to pay for his own defense. Defendants hoped to bankrupt an d abuse Gemperline by imposing a legal cost on Gemperline that he could not bear.

...Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 10 28. The Defendants’ effort culminated on July 2, 2019, when the Complaint, with the petitions attached, was filed in the Delawa re County Court of Common Pleas for Forfeiture of and Removal from office (hereinafter “Removal Complaint”) of Michael Gemperline. Case 1 9 CV H 07 0369. Visiting Judge Guy Reece was assigned to the case.

... 31. Defendant Committee members exercised a malicious intent in filing the untrue and malicious claims and using this filing as a weapon to damage Gemperline in terms of his finances, morale, and reputat ion.

... 33. The filing of the Complaint was timed so as to do maximum damage to Gemperline and anyone associated with him, during an upcoming election.

... 35. The Defendants distributed copies of the Complaint and had other distribute it for them at their behest – often accompanie d by defamatory statements.

... 38. Soon after, Defendants in this case, stated publicly on soc ial media, that they (paraphrased) “accomplished their goals” when the subsequent lawsuit (filed in conjunction with the removal petit ion) was dropped by the petitioners. This despite the fact that the case was dropped,Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 11
with prejudice, without settlemen t or any change in the procedu re or actual facts of the case – on the day of trial.

... 44. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 45. Defendants filed a civil lawsuit in this court with the ult erior motive of harming Gemperline’s reputation, bankrupting him, intimidati ng him, and harassing him. Defendants were motivated by personal animus and political differences rather than a desire to effectuate the purpose of s ection 3.07. 46. Appellee Committee members’ Complaint to Remove [Appellant] constitutes an abuse of process because the facts, as state [ sic ] establish: (1) a legal proceeding was set in motion in proper form and wit h probable cause in the form of the removal Complaint filed with this Cour t; (2) Defendants perverted the legal process to remove Gemperline to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which that process was no t designed; and (3) Defendants directly damaged Plaintiff Gemperline as a r esult of the wrongful use of process. 47. R.C. 3.07 sets forth the process to remove a public officia l, saying, “Any person ... who willfully and flagrantly exercises au thority or power not authorized by law, refuses or willfully neglects to e nforce the law or to perform any official duty imposed upon him by law, or is guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, drunkenness, misfeasance, ma lfeasance, or nonfeasance is guilty of misconduct in office.”Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 12 48. Gemperline denies any wrongdoing that would give rise to removal under section 3.07... 49. Defendants set this process in motion, abused it as a tool for reputational and financial harm, for reasons related to persona l animus and/or political differences of opinion. This is an abuse of th e section 3.07
process. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful and malicious acts in abusing the civil process of this Court, Plai ntiff has suffered economic damages and non-economic damages, including damage to reputation, emotional distress and loss of the enjoyment of lif e. (Amended Complaint, ¶22-50). {¶24} The record demonstrates that the amended complaint alleges that the legal process was proper in form and with probable cause; that Appell ees attempted to pervert the process in an attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed (attempting to influence an election, force Appellant to become a political ally, and attempt to ruin Appellant’s reputation and finances), and that Appellant sustained damages as a result of the wrongful use of process. Accordingly , we find the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to s tate a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶25} Appellant’s First Assignment of Error is sustained.Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 13

II. {¶26} In Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error, Appellant argues tha t the trial court erred by granting Appellee’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss o n Appellant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We disagree. {¶27} In order to assert a claim of intentional infliction of emotion al distress a plaintiff must allege the following: (1) [T]he defendant intended to cause, or knew or should have k nown that his actions would result in serious emotional distress; (2) [T]he defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous tha t it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considere d completely intolerable in a civilized community; (3) [T]he defendant’s actions proximately caused psychological injury to the plaintiff; and (4) [T]he plaintiff suffered serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure. Ashcroft v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 359, 366, 588 N.E.2d 280. {¶28} Again, the notice pleading requirements of Civ.R. 8(A)(1), the plaintiff only needs to plead sufficient, operative facts to support recovery under his claims. Grossniklaus v. Waltman , 5 th Dist. Holmes No. 09CA15, 2010-Ohio-2937, ¶26 citing Doe v. Robinson , 6 th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1051, 2007-Ohio-5746, ¶17. To constitute fair notice, the complaint must allege sufficient underlying facts t hat relate to and support theDelaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 14
alleged claim, and may not simply state legal conclusions. See DeVore v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. , 32 Ohio App.2d 36, 38, 288 N.E.2d 202 (1972). {¶29} In the case sub judice , Appellant’s Amended Complaint contains unsupported conclusions that as a result of the Appellees’ acti ons, Appellant suffered “severe emotional distress and physical health problems”, but d oes not allege any facts sufficient to show that Appellant’s emotional distress and unsp ecified physical health problems were serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure. These unsupported conclusions of a complain t are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Phelps v. Office of the Attorney General , 10 th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-751, 2007-Ohio-14, ¶4 citing State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489. {¶30} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in granting Ap pellees’ Motion to Dismiss Count 2: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distres s. {¶31} Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error is overruled. III. {¶32} In Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by granting Appellees’ 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Appe llant’s defamation claim. We disagree. {¶33} To state a claim for defamat ion, Appellant must allege: (1) a false statement of fact was made about the plaintiff; (2) the statement was defamatory; (3) the statement was published; (4) the plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication and (5 ) the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the stat ement. Am.Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 15
Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366, 2012-Ohio-4193 , 978 N.E.2d 832. A defamatory statement is the unprivileged publicat ion of false and defamatory matter that tends to reflect injuriously on a pe rson’s reputation, or exposes a person to ‘public hatred, contempt, ri dicule, shame or disgrace, or affecting a person adversely in his trade, busi ness, or profession.’” A & B – Abell Elevator v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council , 73 Ohio St.3d 1, 651 N.E.2d 1283 (1995). Jamison v. Galena , 5 th Dist. No. 15 CAE 01 007, 2015-Ohio-2845, 38 N.E.3d 1176, ¶52. {¶34} The United States Supreme Court has held that the United States Constitution requires that a public official may not recover da mages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves tha t the statement was made with actual malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Actual malice means that the statement was made with knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. Jacobs v. Frank , 60 Ohio St.3d 111, 573 N.E.2d 609 (1991). “Reckless disregard” applies when a publishe r of defamatory statements acts with a “high degree of awareness of their proba ble falsity” or when the publisher “in face entertained serious doubts as to the truth o f this publication.” Spitzer v. Knapp , 5 th Dist. Delaware No. 19 CAE 01 0006, 2019-Ohio-2770, ¶40 citing St. Amant v. Thompson , 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed. 262 (1969). Actual mali ce “must be proven with convincing clarity that defendant was aware of the high probability of falsity.” Jacobs v. Budak, 11 th Dist. Trumbull No. 2007-T-0033, 2008-Ohio-2756, ¶64 quoting A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council , 73 OhioDelaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 16 St.3d 1, 13, 651 N.E.2d 1283 (1995) citing Jacobs v. Frank , 60 Ohio St.3d 111, 118-119, 573 N.E.2d 609 (1991). An Appellant must establish in the comp laint that the defendant acted with actual malice in the Appellant’s complaint. Murray v. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co. , 2014-Ohio-5442, 25 N.E.3d 1111, ¶30 (8 th Dist.). {¶35} To qualify as a public official Appellant must “have, or appear to have, substantial responsibility or control over public affairs, and his position must have such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general publ ic interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees.” Rosenblatt v. Baer , 383 U.S. 75, 86 (1966). {¶36} Because this case is an action based on the defamation of a pub lic official, it was not enough for Appellant to show Appellees’ statements w ere false, but was required to show with convincing clarity that Appellees were aw are of the high probability of falsity when they published the defamatory statements. Howev er, Appellant’s Complaint fails to provide specific facts which show Appellees were aware of the high probability of falsity when they published the defamatory state ments. To the contrary, Appellant’s Complaint alleges the Appellees’ statements were ba sed on his vote to request a proposal to replace the township EMS with the Delawar e County EMS and also statements made by another township trustee, Shyra Eichhor n. Further, Appellant only provides a single concluso ry allegation, “[t]he statements referred to above were demonstrably false and Defendants knew it.” Amended Complaint ¶ 14. Appellant failed to allege any facts to show Appe llees acted with actual malice as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

.Delaware County, Case No. 21 CAE 01 0002 17 {¶37} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in granting Ap pellees’ Motion to Dismiss Count 3: Defamation. {¶38} Appellant’s Third Assignment of Error is overruled. {¶39} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed in part and reversed in part . This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

By: Wise, J. Baldwin, P. J., and Gwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 0707