SOULRUSH!
< Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
< Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
__________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
note: Our weekly HBCU feature will return on August 24. Until then, we'll look at misconduct in and by the Courts
____________________________________________________________________________________________ts.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ts.
with simone beverly
Which Cuyahoga County Judge recently allowed a mortgage foreclosure Complaint to proceed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, despite that, pursuant to ORC 2117.06, it was filed in the wrong Court, filed out of time, and named the wrong defendant? Moreover, which real estate mogul (allegedly) profitted from this quackery? Well, we won't put the Big Homies on blast... not today anyway, but we WILL share some of the pertinent details, as follows:
The foreclosure Complaint , filed in July, 2024, concerned a delinquent mortgage held by an individual who died in 2023. And, altho the surviving spouse and unknown heirs were named as defendants, it is important to note that neither the surviving spouse, nor the unknown heirs were parties to the original Mortgage Agreement, which was between decedent and plaintiff. The Florida based attorneys for plantiff , however, asked the court to amend the original Agreement, to reflect that it was now between plaintiff and the surviving spouse. Unfortunately, the court lacked the legal authority to alter the terms of a 2017 contract -- and counsel most likely knew that when it moved for such relief, but since nothing beats a failure but a try, counsel sought to amend the Agreement so that the complaint would meet the jurisdictional requirement to proceed in the Common Pleas Court. That is, if the Agreement was with the surviving spouse, or amended to reflect that it was with the surviving spouse, then the complaint would have been properly before the court. But the Agreement was not between plaintiff and the surviving spouse, it was between plaintiff and decedent, so, consequently, it was not properly before the court, and was , instead, required to be filed in the Probate Court as an estate claim.
But wait, theres more:
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2117.06 , creditors must present claims against an estate, in writing, to the executor/administrator, and in the appropriate Ohio probate court. In the alternative, claims must be presented to the Probate Court in writing that includes the probate case number and caption.
But wait, theres more:
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2117.06 , creditors must present claims against an estate, in writing, to the executor/administrator, and in the appropriate Ohio probate court. In the alternative, claims must be presented to the Probate Court in writing that includes the probate case number and caption.
Moreover, per ORC 2117.06, all creditor claims against the estate must be presented within six months after the decedent’s death, whether or not the estate is released from administration or an executor/administrator is appointed. Claims not presented within six months are forever barred against all parties, including devisees, legatees, and distributees.
In short, under ORC 2117.06, creditors in Ohio must present valid claims to the executor/administrator, their attorney, or the probate court, within six months of the decedent’s death. Failure to do so bars the claim forever.
Pursuant to ORC 2117.06 then, the Common Pleas Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Complaint in question, so it should have been dismissed, or timely filed in the Probate Court, which had exclusive jurisdiction. By July 2024 tho, Plaintiffs claim was barred, because it had not been presented within six months of decedents death as required by law, so, for this reason and at this point, it could not be filed in any court.
Other errors worth mentioning , include, but are not limited to, the courts appointment of a guardian ad litem for the surviving spouse , at the request of the Plaintiff, no less !!! This is notable, because, such an appointment must be made on the recommendation of the court, not the plaintiffs attorney, who, possibly made such a request to facilitate his case, and/or prevent the defendant from appearing pro se with defenses.
Also worth mentioning, is the fact that, once appointed, the guardian ad litem did not object to the Motion for Default Judgment, attend the default Hearing, or take any action to assist the surviving spouse, thus a default judgment was ultimately entered, despite that, at one point, the surviving spouse filed an Answer, so no claim of default ( ie. failure to appear) could legally or logically be made.
Finally, shout out to the attorney who pulls up after the sheriffs sale, claiming to be the attorney for the estate (lol). Theres just one teensy problem. On the date that girlfriend filed her Notice of Appearance as Counsel for the surviving spouse, unknown heirs and the estate, girlfriend hadnt even submitted an application to administer the estate, let alone received letters of authority !!! So, clearly, she lied on the record, because she was not the Administrator for the estate , counsel for the surviving spouse, or counsel for the unknown heirs. Moreover, the heirs claim they 'aint never heard of that woman' (lol), yet , 'that woman' is their counsel of record (lol). Talk about quackery... but then, 'that woman' has been before the Cleveland Bar Association numerous times, for various matters relating to probate , so , clearly, this how she roll.
At the end of the day, at least one heir tried to enter an appearance to raise defenses relative to ORC 2117.06 , but saw those efforts stricken from the record by a court that never had standing to proceed, and should have dismissed the complaint on its face, for lack of jurisdiction.
The real problem tho, is that all of these issues, relative to ORC 2117.06 were presented to the court , both on and off the record, yet the surviving spouse still lost her gently lived in home and all of its contents... courtesy of the Honorable Court , that never had standing to proceed.
Pursuant to ORC 2117.06 then, the Common Pleas Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Complaint in question, so it should have been dismissed, or timely filed in the Probate Court, which had exclusive jurisdiction. By July 2024 tho, Plaintiffs claim was barred, because it had not been presented within six months of decedents death as required by law, so, for this reason and at this point, it could not be filed in any court.
Other errors worth mentioning , include, but are not limited to, the courts appointment of a guardian ad litem for the surviving spouse , at the request of the Plaintiff, no less !!! This is notable, because, such an appointment must be made on the recommendation of the court, not the plaintiffs attorney, who, possibly made such a request to facilitate his case, and/or prevent the defendant from appearing pro se with defenses.
Also worth mentioning, is the fact that, once appointed, the guardian ad litem did not object to the Motion for Default Judgment, attend the default Hearing, or take any action to assist the surviving spouse, thus a default judgment was ultimately entered, despite that, at one point, the surviving spouse filed an Answer, so no claim of default ( ie. failure to appear) could legally or logically be made.
Finally, shout out to the attorney who pulls up after the sheriffs sale, claiming to be the attorney for the estate (lol). Theres just one teensy problem. On the date that girlfriend filed her Notice of Appearance as Counsel for the surviving spouse, unknown heirs and the estate, girlfriend hadnt even submitted an application to administer the estate, let alone received letters of authority !!! So, clearly, she lied on the record, because she was not the Administrator for the estate , counsel for the surviving spouse, or counsel for the unknown heirs. Moreover, the heirs claim they 'aint never heard of that woman' (lol), yet , 'that woman' is their counsel of record (lol). Talk about quackery... but then, 'that woman' has been before the Cleveland Bar Association numerous times, for various matters relating to probate , so , clearly, this how she roll.
At the end of the day, at least one heir tried to enter an appearance to raise defenses relative to ORC 2117.06 , but saw those efforts stricken from the record by a court that never had standing to proceed, and should have dismissed the complaint on its face, for lack of jurisdiction.
The real problem tho, is that all of these issues, relative to ORC 2117.06 were presented to the court , both on and off the record, yet the surviving spouse still lost her gently lived in home and all of its contents... courtesy of the Honorable Court , that never had standing to proceed.
Here Come D' Judge (edited 10:08 EST)
