[Cite as In re Temethy, 2011-Ohio-5296.]

Court of Claims of Ohio 

Victims of Crime Division

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Fourth Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9860 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

IN RE: ROGER G. TEMETHY 

ROGER G. TEMETHY 

 Applicant 

Case No. V2010-50671 

Commissioners: 

Randi M. Ostry, Presiding 

Karl C. Kerschner 

Elizabeth Luper Schuster 

ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL

 {¶1}On April 21, 2010, the applicant, Roger Temethy, filed a compensation 

application. The applicant alleges on September 8, 2003, while he was at work his 

former roommate Margaret Baum, her companion Mike Skufeeda, and various family 

members came to his residence and stole cash and numerous items. The applicant 

asserts his life was threatened, and Margaret Baum ultimately forced him into 

bankruptcy, which was filed on March 10, 2005 and discharged on June 15, 2005. The 

applicant asserts his attorney Teddy Sliwinski never told him about a restraining order 

that was issued against him or advised him of his rights under the Ohio Crime Victims 

Compensation Program. On June 2, 2010, the Attorney General issued a finding of 

fact and decision finding the applicant’s claim should be denied for failure to file his 

compensation application within two years of the occurrence of the alleged criminal 

incidents pursuant to R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) and R.C. 2743.60(A). Furthermore, the 

applicant failed to prove he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct pursuant to R.C. 

2743.51(C)(1). 
Case No. V2010-50671 - 2 - ORDER

 {¶2}On June 7, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. 

On July 30, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision finding no reason to 

modify the initial decision. On August 6, 2010, the applicant filed a notice of appeal 

from the 

July 30, 2010 Final Decision of the Attorney General. Hence, a hearing was held 

before this panel of commissioners on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 A.M. 

 {¶3}The applicant appeared at the hearing and Assistant Attorneys General 

Lauren Angell and Amy O’Grady represented the state of Ohio. 

 {¶4}The applicant was apprised of his right to counsel, however, he waived his 

right and chose to proceed pro se. The applicant asserted that he was a victim of four 

crimes: 1) he was defrauded into filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action; 2) he was 

repeatedly subjected to threats of harm and/or death; 3) he was placed under a 

five-year restraining order which he had no knowledge of; and 4) he was illegally 

arrested in Lorain, Ohio without any probable cause. Finally, another restraining order 

was issued against him for one year without his knowledge. However, the most 

unlawful actions taken against him were promulgated by the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel 

in its refusal to take actions against attorneys and judges who wronged him with the use 

of the judicial process. Whereupon, the applicant concluded his remarks and 

presented Applicant’s Exhibits 1-6 for the panel’s consideration. 

 {¶5}The Attorney General stated after review of the applicant’s compensation 

application, correspondence, and statements made at the hearing there appear to be 12 

incidents of alleged criminal conduct. However, each incident is barred by the statute 

of limitations. In order for this panel to reach the merits of these incidents the applicant 

had to file his compensation application within two years of their occurrence, however, 

he failed to do so. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove he was a victim of 

criminally injurious conduct, failed to timely file a police report, and engaged in 

substantial contributory misconduct. 
Case No. V2010-50671 - 3 - ORDER

 {¶6}In response to the Attorney General’s statements, the applicant asserted 

the statute of limitations should not apply since when a lay person goes to an attorney 

he should be able to rely on the attorney for proper advice and to inform him of the 

availability of any remedy that may be afforded to him, including the Ohio Victims of 

Crime Compensation Program. The failure of his attorney to inform him of the Program 

should not be imputed to him. Whereupon, the hearing was concluded. 

 {¶7}R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) states: 

“(B) All applications for an award of reparations shall be filed as follows: 

“(2) If the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, within two 

years after the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct.” 

 {¶8}R.C. 2743.60(A) in pertinent part states: 

“(A) The attorney general, a court of claims panel of commissioners, or a judge 

of the court of claims shall not make or order an award of reparations to any 

claimant who, if the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, did 

not file an application for an award of reparations within two years after the date 

of the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct that caused the injury or 

death for which the victim is seeking an award of reparations . . .” 

 {¶9}The applicant’s lack of knowledge of the existence of the Ohio Victims of 

Crime Compensation Program does not toll the statute of limitations. In re Robinson, 

V2009-40733tc (3-12-10) affirmed jud (5-25-10); In re Proviano, V2007-90722tc 

(8-22-08) affirmed jud (2-19-09). 

 {¶10}Alleged erroneous advice by an attorney is not sufficient to toll the statute 

of limitations. In re Mowery, V79-3088jud (4-28-80). See also, In re Mulholland, 

V2010-50361tc (8-27-10); In re Davis, V97-69086tc (11-20-98); and In re Totton, 

V2004-60342tc (10-14-04). 

 {¶11}On November 18, 2010, the applicant filed a letter requesting a new 

hearing. On November 19, 2010, the Attorney General filed a memorandum in 

opposition to the applicant’s request for a new hearing. 
Case No. V2010-50671 - 4 - ORDER

 {¶12}From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to the 

statements of the applicant, the exhibits he presented at the hearing, and the arguments 

advanced by the Attorney General, we find the Attorney General’s Final Decision of 

July 30, 2010 should be affirmed. The only issue before this panel was whether the 

applicant filed his compensation application within two years of the occurrence of the 

alleged criminally injurious conduct. The applicant presented no evidence that the 

compensation application was timely filed. 

 {¶13}This court has consistently held that the two-year statute of limitations set 

forth in R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) and R.C. 2743.60(A) is mandatory and jurisdictional. See 

In re Clark (1983), 8 Ohio Misc. 2d 34, 457 N.E. 2d 965. The only exceptions to this 

interpretation fall into two categories. This court has held that: 1) lack of knowledge 

that a crime occurred, see Irwin, supra; or 2) status of the victim and unsound mind, In 

re Lattanzi (1990), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 546, 580 N.E. 2d 541; mental incompetency, In re 

Myers, V2001-32461tc (7-31-02); physical disability, In re McKee, V95-49258tc 

(3-28-97); and repressed memory, In re Michaud, V92-66356tc (10-28-94) all relate to 

the applicant’s inability to recall the occurrence of the criminally injurious conduct. In re 

Lay (1991), 63 Ohio Misc. 2d 35, 619 N.E. 2d 1196; In re Stringfellow, V98-60813tc 

(2-11-00); and In re Johnson, V92-78656tc (5-31-94) concerned the minority status of 

the victims in tolling the statute of limitations. 

 {¶14}Neither the applicant’s lack of knowledge of the program nor the failure of 

his attorney to inform him of the program qualify as an exception to the two-year statute 

of limitations as noted above. Since the applicant’s compensation application was not 

timely filed this panel will not reach the issues concerning criminally injurious conduct, 

failure to timely report to the police, or contributory misconduct. Therefore, the 

Attorney General’s July 30, 2010 decision is affirmed. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 
Case No. V2010-50671 - 5 - ORDER

 {¶15}1) The Applicant’s Exhibits 1-6 are admitted into evidence; 

 {¶16}2) The applicant’s request for a new hearing is DENIED since the 

hearing of November 17, 2010 was in compliance with R.C. 2743.61(B); 

 {¶17}3) The July 30, 2010 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 

 {¶18}4) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio; 

 {¶19}5) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.

 _______________________________________ 

 RANDI M. OSTRY 

 Presiding Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 KARL C. KERSCHNER 

 Commissioner

 _______________________________________ 

 ELIZABETH LUPER SCHUSTER 

 Commissioner 

ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel Decisions\2011\January 2011\V2010-50671Temethy.wpd\DRB-tad 

 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and 

sent by regular mail to Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and to: 

Filed 1-14-11 

Jr. Vol. 2277, Pgs. 161-165 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10-13-11