Case Name: TALLAL, a.k.a. Turner, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. BANK ONE, N.A., Appellant and Cross-Appellee
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2001-01-24
Citations: 146 Ohio App. 3d 511
Docket Number: No. 19592
Parties: TALLAL, a.k.a. Turner, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. BANK ONE, N.A., Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
Judges: Baird, P.J., and Slaby, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 146
Pages: 511–518

Head Matter:
TALLAL, a.k.a. Turner, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. BANK ONE, N.A., Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
[Cite as Tallal v. Bank One, N.A, 146 Ohio App.3d 511, 2001-Ohio-4348.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County.
No. 19592.
Decided Jan. 24, 2001.
Robert C. Meeker and Darren W. DeHaven, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Rajko Radonjich, Howard E. Mentzer, John W. Mygrant and Yalarie J. Rochester-Young, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant-defendant Bank One, N.A. ("Bank One") appeals from the jury verdict rendered in favor of appellee-plaintiff Miriam Tallal ("Tallal") in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This court reverses.
I
{¶ 2} Tallal filed suit against Bank One asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), Bank One filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied.
{¶ 3} A jury trial commenced, and at the close of Tallal's case, Bank One moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Bank One on Tallal's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. On Tallal's action for breach of contract, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Tallal in the amount of $1 million.
{¶ 4} Subsequently, Bank One filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Tallal filed a motion for prejudgment interest. The trial court denied both motions.
{¶ 5} Bank One timely appeals, setting forth three assignments of error. Tallal has cross-appealed, asserting one error. Before turning to the substance of Bank One's appeal, however, a procedural issue must be addressed.
{¶ 6} Bank One's brief fails to conform to the Appellate Rules. The assignments of error are not separately argued, and the "law and argument" makes no reference to the trial court's error and fails to contain any specific references to the record. Bank One has set forth the following three assignments of error:
{¶ 7} "Appellant's first assignment of error:
{¶ 8} "The trial court erred in failing to grant defendant Bank One dismissal for failure to state a claim or a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the breach of contract claim.
{¶ 9} "Appellant's second assignment of error:
{¶ 10} "The trial court erred in the instructions it gave to the jury on the breach of contract and further erred in sending the issue of breach of contract to the jury where the facts relevant to the issue were not in dispute.
{¶ 11} "Appellant's third assignment of error:
{¶ 12} "The jury's verdict for plaintiff Tallal on a claim of a breach of contract is against the manifest weight of the undisputed evidence both as to liability and amount."
{¶ 13} The law and argument purported to support these assignments begins on page ten. However, this analysis gives little insight into the issues and does little to advance Bank One's cause.
{¶ 14} App.R. 12(A)(2) expressly authorizes this court to disregard errors not separately argued. See Advertising Tapes, Inc. v. Misquitta (Apr. 15, 1998), Summit App. No. 18631, 1998 WL 178562 (summarily rejecting the appeal on the basis that the appellant's brief failed to comply with the Appellate Rules).
{¶ 15} In the interest of justice, however, this court has attempted to sort through the body of Bank One's brief in order to extract arguments in support of each assignment of error.
II
{¶ 16} "Appellant's first assignment of error:
{¶ 17} "The trial court erred in failing to grant defendant Bank One dismissal for failure to state a claim or a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the breach of contract claim."
{¶ 18} Bank One avers that the trial court erred in not granting a directed verdict on Tallal's breach-of-contract claim. We agree.
{¶ 19} Bank One argues that because the security agreement is unambiguous and did not place any obligation upon Bank One with respect to the pledged securities, the parol evidence rule precluded the use of oral testimony to vary the contract terms. We agree. The security agreement is unambiguous. It did not place any obligation upon Bank One to manage or supervise Tallal's funds. Instead, the agreement required Tallal to pledge securities worth $1 million as collateral for a loan Bank One gave to Tallal. The pledged securities were to ensure that Bank One could recoup its losses in the event that Tallal defaulted on her loan. Tallal, not Bank One, was required to monitor her accounts and guarantee that the pledged securities did not decrease in value below $1 million.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we sustain Bank One's first assignment of error. Because this disposition renders the remainder of Bank One's assigned errors moot, we disregard them.
{¶ 21} "Appellee's cross-assignment of error:
{¶ 22} "The trial court erred by failing to award prejudgment interest to appellee/cross-appellant upon her verdict against appellant/cross-appellee for breach of contract."
{¶ 23} In her sole cross-assignment of error, Tallal argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C. 1343.03. Our disposition of Bank One's first assignment of error renders Tallal's cross-assignment moot.
Ill
{¶ 24} The judgment of the court of common pleas is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Baird, P.J., and Slaby, J., concur.
. The record reflects that Miriam Tallal is also known as Miriam Turner.