Kennedy v. Kennedy

2025 Ohio 80

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 2024-G-0039
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2025-Ohio-80.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY

BRIAN KENNEDY, CASE NO. 2024-G-0039

Petitioner-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

ALEA R. KENNEDY, Trial Court No. 2022 DK 000080 Respondent-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Decided: January 13, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Deanna L. DiPetta and Kathryn E. Meloni, Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis, 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 600, Cleveland, OH 44122 (For Petitioner-Appellee).

Alea R. Kennedy, pro se, 1101 Tropicana Avenue, No. 2121, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (Respondent-Appellant).

John H. Lawson, Prospect Park Building, 4614 Prospect Avenue, Suite 323, Cleveland, OH 44103 (Guardian Ad Litem).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

{¶1} On September 11, 2024, Appellant, Alea Kennedy, filed her Notice of

Appeal. On December 6, 2024, Appellee, Brian Kennedy, notified this Court that the

Geauga County Court of Common Pleas declared Appellant to be a vexatious litigator

pursuant to R.C. 2323.52 on November 20, 2024, in Case No. 2024 M 000587. The

court’s docket in that case supports that assertion. Appellant has not contested it. On December 12, 2024, we granted Appellant 14 days to seek leave to continue her appeal

or to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed for failure to do so.

{¶2} Appellant has not filed any motion seeking leave to continue her appeal.

{¶3} “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that a

person found to be a vexatious litigator under this section has instituted, continued, or

made an application in legal proceedings without obtaining leave to proceed from the

appropriate court of common pleas or court of appeals to do so under division (F) of this

section, the court in which the legal proceedings are pending shall dismiss the

proceedings or application of the vexatious litigator.” R.C. 2323.52(I).

{¶4} When the word “shall” is used in a statute, compliance is mandatory unless

there appears a clear and unequivocal legislative intent that it receive a construction other

than its ordinary usage. See Watkins v. Hall, 2020-Ohio-4192, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.). This Court

has also held that, “‘[a]bsent the requisite request for leave, a court of appeals is required

to dismiss the proceedings.’” Id., quoting Novotny v. Krlich, 2017-Ohio-8287, ¶ 3 (11th

Dist.).

{¶5} It appears that Appellant has been declared a vexatious litigator on

November 20, 2024, in Case No. 2024 M 000587. Appellant has failed to seek leave to

continue her appeal. Therefore, her appeal is dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2024-G-0039