Braxton v. ODJFS
Opinion
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
TONTRENCE BRAXTON C.A. No. 31696 Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE
DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JOB & FAMILY SERVICES, et al. COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2025-01-0027 Appellees
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: August 26, 2026
SUTTON, Judge
{¶1} Appellant Tontrence Braxton appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
Relevant Background Information
{¶2} This appeal concerns the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Ms.
Braxton. Ms. Braxton was employed by Appellee Gardner Pie Company, Inc. In August 2024, Ms. Braxton quit her job with Gardner Pie. Ms. Braxton then applied for unemployment benefits. On her application, the reason she gave for quitting was “working conditions.” Appellee Director of the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (“ODJFS”) determined Ms. Braxton was not eligible for unemployment benefits because she had quit her job without just cause.
{¶3} After Ms. Braxton exhausted her administrative remedies, in which the denial of unemployment benefits was affirmed at each step, she appealed the decision of the Unemployment
Compensation Review Commission to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 4141.282.
{¶4} According to the briefing schedule set by the trial court, Ms. Braxton’s merit brief was due on or before July 7, 2025. On July 3, 2025, Ms. Braxton filed her brief and then on July 11, 2025, Ms. Braxton filed an amended brief, apparently to cure deficiencies in the original brief she filed. ODJFS moved to strike the amended brief as untimely and moved to dismiss the appeal because Ms. Braxton failed to timely file an appropriate merit brief. The trial court struck Ms. Braxton’s amended merit brief as untimely and dismissed Ms. Braxton’s appeal because she “failed to file a brief that expresses her arguments with legal support.” The trial court then affirmed the administrative decision based on the administrative record.
{¶5} Ms. Braxton has appealed, raising three assignments of error for our review, which are set forth below verbatim. All three assignments of error were set forth together in Ms. Braxton’s brief and not separately argued.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“The duty of the Appellant Court is not to make factual findings or determine the credibility of the witnesses; rather, the court “is to determine whether the decision of the Board is supported by the evidence in the record.” (Citations omitted) Irvine v. State Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 19 Ohio St. 3d 15, 18, 482 N.E.2d 587 (1985). “This duty is shared by all reviewing Courts, from the first level of review in the Court of Common Pleas, through the final Appeal in this Court Tzangas at 696.” (Emphasis added) Kappan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2013- Ohio- 4964 At 14. When the Judge entered an Order drawn off of conduct in the nature of fraud, hence; bringing about a shift in the direction of the valid contextual focus of the proceedings from a factual question involving the “omission of evidence” to a theoretical one theorized that movant sought to add evidence to the (UCRC’S) “Transcript of the Record of the Proceedings” as defined by R.C. 4141.282(F)(1) (Duty of the Commission) and Adm. Code 4146-17-01(A) (Availability of Info. Contained in Rev. Comm. File). The Judge acted without authority and-orjurisdiction because the Order misapplied the law hence void, and fails to apply the appropriate standard of review and standard of procedure mandated by R.C. Ch.
4141 (Unemployment Compensation) and R.C. 4141.282(H) (Review by the Court of Common Pleas) to address the conflict of law involving (UI) claims from the (ODJFS) for (UI) being Administratively Appealed that the omission of evidence from the (UCRC’s) “Transcript of the Record of the Proceedings” raises. Which is a denial of Due Process and erred when it DELAYED and DENIED movants motion under Civ. P. 60(B) (Relief from a Judgment or Order) to dismiss.
(Emphasis in original.)
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
De novo review requires a reviewing Court to examine an issue afresh and to substitute it’s judgement for that of the first level of review. This Appeal brought from the Court of Common Pleas at it’s on set presented before the Judge issue where conflict exists in the form of a question of law involving the omission of evidence from the (UCRC’s) “Transcript of the Record of the Proceedings” compliance with the statutory mandate of R.C. 4141.282(F)(1) (Duty of the Commission), and; actions of the Director excluding certain content that only upon being petitioned via a “Motion to Produce Documentation.” Submits content that was entered as evidence by another party to the (ODJFS) unemployment proceedings to now movant. In and of itself is a matter requiring the application of laws relative to it that the Judge disregarded and wrongly applied thereby entering a decision that is not supported by the evidence: which not only denied movant Due Process but is also considered not mere error but rather void.
(Emphasis in original.)
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
Placed before the Court of Appeals is a matter that it views De novo in addition to an abuse of discretion. In instances such as this the “standard of review” is to accord deference to the lower Court’s finding of fact but engage in a De novo review of the lower Court’s application of those facts to the law. As abuse- of- desecration doesn’t permit a Appellant Court to simply substitute it’s judgement for that of the trial Court, so; addressing legal and mixed questions De novo while deferring to the trial Court’s factual findings: a reviewing Court should accept a trial Court’s finding of fact if they are supported by competent, credible, evidence. The proceedings as they rest reflects actions in where the Judge disregarded the provisions of R.C. 4141.282(H) (Review by the Court of Common Pleas) that establish statutory mandated standards of review and C.A. 31696 standards of procedure: to establish a basis to deny appellant’s otherwise valid claim and sufficient grounds to be granted the relief being sought. Circumstances where an order drawn off actions in the nature of fraud was those that removed the basis in which a fair trial could take place, and warranted granting appellant’s Motion stylized as a Civ. R. 60(B) Motion for a dismissal. There are -nor- were there any exceptions to the mandates of R.C. 4141.282(F)(1) (Duty of the Commission) and
the failure of the commission to satisfy the requirements and or offer anything exculpatory, in addition to; “affirmatively misrepresenting and concealing” evidence meant that the court didn’t have jurisdiction to act: which establishes it incorrect for the Court to continue proceeding. As this Administrative Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from (ODJFS) for (UI) now rest. Suggests that the Court-had discretion to define what process the Appellant in an Administrative Appeal is due, or to permit a concededly unconstitutional proceeding to proceed. In which neither are consistent with the constitutional guarantees enshrined in the Due Process and Due Course of Law Clauses and abridged appellant thereof.
(Emphasis in original.)
{¶6} Ms. Braxton’s appellate brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7) and this Court’s Loc.R. 16(A)(7). App.R. 16(A)(7) provides that an appellant’s brief shall include:
An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary.
(Emphasis added.) Loc.R. 16(A)(7) provides in relevant part:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Braxton v. ODJFS (Braxton v. ODJFS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.