Court Opinion

ID: 9896212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 19:09:23.804989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:21.650657
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Tax Ease Ohio II, L.L.C. v. Cramer, 2023-Ohio-4067.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

TAX EASE OHIO II, LLC,                                :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,                   :
                                                                No. 112559
                v.                                    :

MARILYN ABRIENNE CRAMER,
TRUSTEE, ET AL.,                                      :

                Defendants-Appellants.                :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 8, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CV-20-928084

                                            Appearances:

                Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A., and Roy J.
                Schechter, for appellee.

                Marilyn A. Cramer, pro se.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                Defendant-appellant, Marilyn Abrienne Cramer, Trustee, appeals from

the trial court’s March 2, 2023 final order in this tax foreclosure case. Cramer is

pro se. For the reasons set forth below, this appeal is dismissed.
             Plaintiff-appellee, Tax Ease Ohio II, L.L.C. (“Tax Ease”), initiated this

case against “Marilyn Abrienne Cramer, Trustee of the Second Amended and

Restated Declaration of Trust of the Marilyn Abrienne Cramer Revocable Trust

dated November 15, 2006,” and other interested parties. See complaint, p. 1.

Tax Ease sought to foreclose on a Cleveland Heights property owned by the Trust,

based on tax certificates it owned relative to the property. The trial court granted a

decree of foreclosure in its March 2, 2023 judgment. Cramer, Trustee, has filed this

appeal pro se challenging the trial court’s decree of foreclosure.

             “A trustee of a trust, who is not a licensed and registered attorney at

law, may not file pleadings, argue or otherwise represent the trust as its counsel in a

court.” Bank of New York v. Miller, 185 Ohio App.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6117, 923

N.E.2d 651, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.), citing Scott v. H.T.M. Trust, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-

90-4, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2246 (May 9, 1991), citing Williams v. Global Constr.

Co., Ltd., 26 Ohio App.3d 119, 498 N.E.2d 500 (10th Dist.1985), syllabus;

R.C. 4705.01; Palmer v. Westmeyer, 48 Ohio App.3d 296, 549 N.E.2d 1202

(6th Dist.1988) (disallowing officer of corporation from representing corporation in

legal proceedings in a pro se capacity where officer is not an attorney at law).

             The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision has also held that a

nonattorney trustee may not file on behalf of a trust, because the trust and trustee

are separate legal entities. See Chandras v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, BTA

No. 2006-A-1265, 2007 Ohio Tax LEXIS 728 (May 18, 2007), citing Tubalcain Trust

v. Cornerstone Constr., Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 93APE12-1701, 1994 Ohio App.
LEXIS 2307 (May 26, 1994); Scott v. H.T.M. Trust; Jones, Trustee v. Geauga Cty.

Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 2003-K-1277, 2004 Ohio Tax LEXIS 221 (Feb. 6, 2004);

The Dorcas W. Burns Trust v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 1997-K-710,

1997 Ohio Tax LEXIS 1189 (Sept. 12, 1997); Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Alexander,

79 Ohio St.3d 1220, 681 N.E.2d 934 (1997).

            Marilyn Cramer was a licensed Ohio attorney, but she was suspended

indefinitely in 2020. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Cramer, 160 Ohio St.3d 430,

2020-Ohio-4195, 157 N.E.3d 756, ¶ 3, 62. “When a non-attorney files a notice of

appeal and attempts to prosecute the appeal in court as counsel on behalf of another,

such constitutes the unauthorized practice of law for which the pleadings filed

should be stricken and the proceeding thus attempted dismissed.”            Bank of

New York v. Miller at ¶ 13.

            The Ohio Supreme Court has defined the unauthorized practice of law

to include both the “[h]olding out to the public or otherwise representing oneself as

authorized to practice law in Ohio” and the “rendering of legal services for another”

by any person who is not authorized to practice law under the court’s rules.

Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1) and (4). The practice of law “embraces the preparation of

pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the

management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and

courts.” Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650

(1934), paragraph one of the syllabus; see also Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep, 74

Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 657 N.E.2d 499 (1995). It also “encompasses giving legal advice
and counsel.” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford, 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 112, 707 N.E.2d

462 (1999), citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch, 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d

244 (1998).

              Because Cramer, a nonattorney, has filed this appeal attempting to

represent the interests of a trust, she is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,

and we must dismiss this case.

              Appeal dismissed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR