Morgan v. Jones

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: C-250217
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Morgan v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-2432.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

VICTORIA MORGAN, : APPEAL NO. C-250217 TRIAL NO. DR-1801556 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY MARK G. JONES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

: PRODIGY PROPERTIES, LLC, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. :

MARK G. JONES, : Trustee of the Mark G. Jones Revocable Trust dated July 30, 1998, :

Defendant-Appellant, :

and :

VICTORIA MORGAN, : Trustee of the Victoria Morgan Revocable Trust dated April 20, 1999, as : amended September 10, 2002, : Defendant-Appellee. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs. Also before the court are Victoria Morgan’s December 19, 2025 “Motion Pursuant to Loc.R. 23 to Declare Mark G. Jones a Vexatious Litigator,” and the portion of her September 15, OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2025 “Motion to Strike Appellant’s Brief and for Sanctions” that the court deferred in its order of October 10, 2025. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that all costs be taxed to appellant Mark G. Jones. And the court orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27. Further, for the reasons set forth in the same Opinion filed this date, the court denies the outstanding portion of appellee Victoria Morgan’s September 15, 2025 motion requesting sanctions against appellant Mark G. Jones, along with her December 19, 2025 motion to find appellant Mark G. Jones to be a vexatious litigator under Loc.R. 23(B).

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 6/26/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Morgan v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-2432.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

VICTORIA MORGAN, : APPEAL NO. C-250217 TRIAL NO. DR-1801556 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION MARK G. JONES, :

MARK G. JONES, : Trustee of the Mark G. Jones Revocable Trust dated July 30, 1998, :

VICTORIA MORGAN, : Trustee of the Victoria Morgan Revocable Trust dated April 20, 1999, as : amended September 10, 2002, : Defendant-Appellee. :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part; Motion for Sanctions Denied; Motion to Declare Appellant a Vexatious Litigator Denied OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 26, 2026

Law Office of M. Erin Wilkins, LLC, M. Erin Wilkins and Emily C. Robbins, for Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Morgan,

Mark G. Jones, pro se. [Cite as Morgan v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-2432.]

CROUSE, Judge.

{¶1} Appellee Victoria Morgan divorced appellant Mark G. Jones seven years

ago. They have been embroiled in proceedings to divide up their marital assets,

including the home they once shared, ever since. This appeal arises from the final

chapters of that tale, in which the domestic-relations court finally discharged the

receiver it had appointed to sell the house.

{¶2} Jones now argues that the domestic-relations court’s order discharging

the receiver was invalid, both because it contained unlawful terms and because Jones

received insufficient notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the order’s entry. He

also argues that the domestic-relations court should have granted his motion for a new

trial on the receiver’s discharge. For her part, Morgan asks that we sanction Jones for

citing a pair of fictitious cases in his brief, and that we declare him a vexatious litigator

for filing numerous meritless appeals from their divorce proceedings.

{¶3} For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the domestic-relations court’s

order discharging the receiver, and we vacate as void its order denying Jones’s motion

for a new trial. And while we acknowledge Morgan’s concerns about Jones’s conduct,

we deny her motions for sanctions and to declare Jones a vexatious litigator.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Prior Proceedings

{¶4} Morgan and Jones were once married and owned, as tenants in

common, a residence in Mount Adams (“the house”). In 2018, Morgan filed for

divorce. In 2019, the domestic-relations court entered a decree of divorce, which

instructed the parties to place the house for sale, but allowed either party to exercise a

right of first refusal to purchase the house pursuant to terms in their antenuptial

agreement. Jones appealed, but we affirmed the decree. See Morgan v. Jones, 2020 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Ohio App. LEXIS 3200 (1st Dist. Sept. 2, 2020) (“Jones I”).

{¶5} Getting the house up for sale proved difficult. The domestic-relations

court found that Jones was “unwilling or unable to cooperate in the sale” of the

property, and so placed the house in receivership and appointed Valerie Zummo as

receiver with authority to sell it. Again Jones appealed, and again we affirmed in

Morgan v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-1831 (1st Dist.) (“Jones II”).

{¶6} Zummo hired Prodigy Properties, LLC, (“Prodigy”) to help sell the

house. Eventually, Zummo withdrew as receiver, and the domestic-relations court

substituted Prodigy, “by and through its Managing Director, Jeff Lane,” in her place.

{¶7} When Jones did not remove certain encumbrances on the house, the

receiver filed a “Complaint to Sell Real Estate” in the general division of the Hamilton

County Court of Common Pleas, in the case numbered A-2301388. That action was

then consolidated with the divorce action in the domestic-relations division,

numbered DR-1801556. The domestic-relations court entered an order authorizing

the receiver to sell the property, free and clear of certain interests and encumbrances.

The sale-authorization order also provided that “[a]ny personal property not removed

from the Property at the time of the Closing shall be deemed abandoned.”

{¶8} Jones appealed from the sale-authorization,1 attacking the domestic-

relations court’s order substituting Prodigy as receiver, alleging that Jones had not

received notice of the hearing on the sale order, and contending that the domestic-

relations court had failed to enforce his antenuptial agreement. We rejected his

arguments and affirmed both the sale-authorization and receiver-substitution orders.

1 Jones actually filed two appeals from this order. One of these, which Jones filed as trustee on

behalf of the Mark G. Jones Revocable Trust Dated July 30, 1998, was dismissed on the ground that Jones was not a licensed and registered attorney permitted to represent the trust in court. See Entry of Dismissal, Morgan v. Jones, No. C-240067 (1st Dist. Feb. 21, 2024) (“Jones VI”).

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Morgan v. Jones, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3994, *2-5 (1st Dist. Nov. 6, 2024) (“Jones

VII”).

{¶9} Throughout this time, the receiver was attempting to sell the house. The

receiver found a buyer but could not obtain title insurance while Jones’s appeal of the

sale-authorization order remained pending. But on November 15, 2024, nine days

after this court affirmed the sale-authorization order in Jones VII, the receiver and

buyers closed on the house.

{¶10} Morgan filed a copy of the receiver’s final report in the domestic-

relations court on November 27. Appended to the report was a copy of the closing

statement and settlement sheet, which indicated the contract sale price for the house

was $850,000. However, the proceeds were reduced by $843,290.89 to pay off a

mortgage on the property held by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, and by $20,476.49 to

pay county property taxes that had accrued during 2024. In addition, Prodigy received

a $34,000 commission and $5,623.79 in reimbursement for expenses. “Sibcy Cline

Realtors (Hyde Park)” received a $17,000 commission. When added to the $6,287.75

in ordinary closing expenses (e.g., title insurance and recording fees), the expenses

and obligations totaled $926,678.92—far more than the $850,000 sale price. To cover

the difference, the settlement sheet indicates that the seller paid $73,006.67 cash at

closing, and the buyers paid the remaining $3,672.25.

{¶11} In its final report, the receiver indicated that, following the closing, the

“receivership estate no longer contain[ed] any assets,” “was insolvent,” and “had no

funds derived from income from the Property.”

{¶12} Nothing further happened for several weeks. On December 16, Morgan

filed a motion to discharge the receiver, which she acknowledges was never properly

served on Jones. The domestic-relations court granted Morgan’s motion and

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

discharged the receiver in an entry two days later, on December 18, 2024 (the

“discharge order”).

{¶13} On January 15, 2025, Jones, through counsel, filed a “Motion for New

Trial on 12/18/2024 Order Discharging Receiver.” Several weeks after that, Jones’s

counsel sought leave to withdraw and asked that the domestic-relations court set a

hearing on Jones’s new-trial motion (and a pending contempt charge2) “on or after

3/17/2025,” so that Jones would have time to prepare. The domestic-relations court

granted the motion to withdraw and scheduled the hearing for March 17. In a later

reply, Jones sought to withdraw his request for a hearing, but the domestic-relations

court denied this request and stated that it would hold a hearing on March 19, 2025.

Jones sought to continue the contempt portion of the hearing, but, when Morgan

withdrew the contempt charge, the domestic-relations court denied his request for a

continuance. Jones asked to appear remotely for what was now a hearing on the new-

trial motion alone, but the domestic-relations court denied this request as well.

{¶14} March 19 came, and Jones failed to appear at his hearing. Two days

later, on March 21, the domestic-relations court entered an order dismissing Jones’s

new-trial motion (the “new-trial order”). The court stated that it was dismissing

Jones’s motion based on his failure to appear, but said that, even if the motion had

“not [been] dismissed for his lack of appearance,” the court “would [have] den[ied] it

on the merits.”

2 This contempt charge related to an incident in October 2024, in which neighbors observed Jones,

a locksmith, a plumber, and his dog, attempting to enter the house without the receiver’s permission. The neighbors called the police, who took Jones into custody pursuant to an order attaching Jones’s body for a prior contempt of the domestic-relations court. On October 21, 2024, Morgan filed a new contempt charge based on Jones’s attempted entry into the house, which was to be heard on March 17, 2025.

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

B. This Appeal

{¶15} Jones filed a notice of appeal on April 11, 2025, seeking to challenge

both the December 18 discharge order and the March 21 new-trial order.

{¶16} On September 15, 2025, Morgan filed a motion asking this court to

strike Jones’s principal brief and impose sanctions. In it, Morgan identified two

citations to “phantom cases,” which she suggested were a byproduct of hallucinatory

artificial-intelligence software. On October 10, a motions panel of this court denied

Morgan’s motion to strike Jones’s brief, explaining that the accuracy of his citations

went to the merits of his arguments and was “not cause to strike the brief.” However,

the motions panel did not resolve the request for sanctions, electing to defer the issue

to this panel.

{¶17} On December 19, 2025, after briefing was complete, Morgan filed a

motion for this court to declare Jones a vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.R. 23(B).

Morgan argued that Jones’s repeated appeals from the divorce proceedings have been

frivolous and/or filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. Jones filed a

memorandum in opposition to that request.

{¶18} Thus, this court now has before it (1) the merits of Jones’s appeal from

the discharge and new-trial orders, (2) the outstanding portion of Morgan’s September

15 motion seeking sanctions, and (3) Morgan’s December 19 motion for this court to

declare Jones a vexatious litigator.

II. JONES’S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶19} We begin with Jones’s appeal. He raises two assignments of error: the

first challenging the March 21, 2025 new-trial order, and the second challenging the

December 18, 2024 discharge order underlying it. For the reasons set forth below, we

vacate the former as void and affirm the latter.

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

A. New-Trial Order

{¶20} Like Jones, we will work backwards, beginning with the March 21 order

denying Jones’s motion for a new trial. We lack the power to reach the merits of the

new-trial order, however. Jones’s new-trial motion was a nullity from the beginning,

and the order denying it therefore void ab initio.

{¶21} A motion for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(B) “is a nullity unless it is filed

after a trial has occurred.” See Fougere v. Estate of Fougere, 2017-Ohio-7905, ¶ 14

(10th Dist.); see also L.A. & D., Inc. v. Bd. of Lake Cty. Commrs., 67 Ohio St.2d 384,

387 (1981). Because Civ.R. 59 provides no definition of what constitutes a “trial,” we

look to caselaw. In First Bank of Marietta v. Mascrete, Inc., 1997-Ohio-158, the Ohio

Supreme Court held that, to determine whether a proceeding was a “trial” for purposes

of Civ.R. 59, we should consider whether “the indicia of trial substantially predominate

in the proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 25. Those indicia can include some or all of the following:

(1) whether the proceeding was initiated by pleadings, (2) whether it

took place in court, (3) whether it was held in the presence of a judge or

magistrate, (4) whether the parties or their counsel were present, (5)

whether evidence was introduced, (6) whether arguments were

presented in court by counsel, (7) whether issues of fact were decided

by the judge or magistrate, (8) whether the issues decided were central

or ancillary to the primary dispute between the parties, (9) whether a

judgment was rendered on the evidence.

Id. at ¶ 26.

{¶22} In general, Ohio courts have found a trial has taken place only in cases

“where there has been an in-court hearing succeeded by a judgment ruling on the

issues argued and evidence heard at the hearing.” Gallick v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Revision, 2018-Ohio-818, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing Fougere, 2017-Ohio-7905, at ¶ 15

(10th Dist.). Thus, in Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2012-Ohio-6232, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.),

the Tenth District held that a motion for a new trial was proper where a “hearing took

place in court, in the presence of a judge, with the parties, their counsel, and their

expert witnesses present,” and where, at that hearing, “parties’ counsel presented

arguments to the court.” See also, e.g., Haase v. Haase, 64 Ohio App.3d 758, 760-762

(8th Dist. 1990). And in Mascrete itself, the Court held that an adversarial, in-person

contempt hearing that led to a finding of contempt constituted a “trial” for purposes

of Civ.R. 59(B). Mascrete at ¶ 27.

{¶23} By contrast, courts have said that a Civ.R. 59 motion is improper where

“no proceedings occurred [at which] the parties or counsel presented evidence and

argument in court to a trial judge or magistrate.” Gallick at ¶ 21. Thus, they have held

that a motion for new trial will not lie to challenge orders granting summary judgment,

L.A. & D., 67 Ohio St.2d at 387; dismissing an action for failure to prosecute without a

hearing, Fougere, 2017-Ohio-7905, at ¶ 7, 15 (10th Dist.); entering a default judgment

following a “non-oral hearing,” Tipton v. Goodnight, 2006-Ohio-113, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.);

or denying a motion to intervene, Earth Mobile, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2023-Ohio-

3354, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), and Savage v. Cody-Zeigler, Inc., 2006-Ohio-2760, ¶ 18 (4th

Dist.).

{¶24} The determination of whether a proceeding constituted a “trial” is not a

categorical one; it turns on the character of the proceedings that actually occurred.

Even judgments or orders that might usually be entered following a “trial” cannot be

challenged by a Civ.R. 59 motion if no trial in fact occurred. So the Tenth District held

that a Civ.R. 59 motion would not lie to challenge the outcome of an administrative

appeal where no hearings took place and “no proceedings occurred where the

11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

parties or counsel presented evidence and argument in court to a trial judge or

magistrate.” Galick at ¶ 21. And both the Eighth and Tenth Districts have held that

Civ.R. 59 is unavailable to challenge a decree of divorce, if that decree was entered

pursuant to a settlement agreement, rather than a trial. Shepherd v. Shepherd, 2018-

Ohio-1037, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.); Diguilio v. Diguilio, 2003-Ohio-2197, ¶ 39-40 (8th Dist.).

{¶25} In Jones’s case, the domestic-relations court held no hearing prior to

discharging the receiver. No attorneys were present in court, and no evidence offered

before a judge or magistrate. Indeed, the gravamen of Jones’s motion was that he

never received a hearing. Because Civ.R. 59 focuses on whether a trial was actually

held, and because nothing resembling a trial occurred prior to the discharge order, we

hold that Jones’s January 15 motion for new trial was a legal nullity.

{¶26} A litigant who never received a trial is not without a remedy. Appeal is

available for errors appearing on the record, and Civ.R. 60(B) can accommodate

certain challenges that require additional evidence. But Jones moved for a “new trial”

where a first trial had never occurred. Because that motion was a nullity, so, too, was

the domestic-relations court’s order denying it. We have no jurisdiction to review and

reverse or affirm such an order. Instead, the appropriate remedy is to recognize that

the order was void and vacate it. See State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-2024, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.)

(court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review an order that was “a legal nullity,” but

could vacate it as void ab initio).

{¶27} Accordingly, we vacate the new-trial order, rendering Jones’s first

assignment of error moot.

B. Discharge Order

{¶28} Jones’s second assignment of error challenges the December 18 order

12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

discharging the receiver and terminating the receivership.3

{¶29} Receivers are officers of the court, appointed in equity to manage,

preserve, and sometimes dispose of property in controversy during litigation. See

1 Clark, A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Receivers, § 11(a), at 13 (3d Ed. 1959)

(hereinafter “Clark on Receivers”); Fontain v. Sandhu, 2021-Ohio-2750, ¶ 23 (1st

Dist.). The decision whether to discharge a receiver is entrusted to the sound

discretion of the trial court, and we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. See

Fifth Third Bank v. Dayton Lodge, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5755, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.), citing Milo

v. Curtis, 100 Ohio App.3d 1, 8 (9th Dist. 1994); Dyczkiewycz v. Tremont Ridge Phase

1 Ltd. Partnership, 2012-Ohio-5173, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). But discretion is always bounded

by law, so a trial court necessarily abuses its discretion if it discharges or fails to

discharge a receiver in a manner contrary to law. See Cincinnati, Sandusky &

Cleveland RR. Co. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St. 1, 13-14 (1876); see also Johnson v. Abdullah,

2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 38-39.

{¶30} We will divide Jones’s challenges to the discharge order into three

groups: (1) those concerning his alleged lack of notice and a hearing prior to the

discharge, (2) those challenging provisions of the discharge order itself, and (3) those

addressing the domestic-relations court’s prior orders, decisions, and proceedings.

3 Ordinarily, we would lack jurisdiction to review the discharge order. The order was entered on

December 18, 2024, and Jones did not appeal it until April 11, 2025. That delay far exceeds the usual 30 days allotted by App.R. 4(A)(1). And Jones’s new-trial motion could not have tolled his time to appeal under App.R. 4(B)(2)(b), because that motion was a nullity. Compare Fougere, 2017-Ohio-7905, at ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). But in this case, Jones’s deadline to appeal the December 18 order never began to run, because the record contains no indication Jones was ever served with that order. The order itself contained no instruction to the clerk to serve Jones, and we can find no contemporaneous certificate of service on the record. Thus, we must conclude that the clerk never “completed service of notice of the [December 18] judgment” upon Jones, so that the 30-day deadline to appeal did not begin to run under App.R. 4(A)(3).

13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

1. Notice & Opportunity to Be Heard

{¶31} Jones first contends that he was not given adequate notice and an

opportunity to be heard before the domestic-relations court entered its discharge

order.

a.

{¶32} As a threshold matter, Morgan contends that neither notice nor hearing

were required prior to discharging the receiver. We disagree.

{¶33} Civ.R. 66 provides that receiverships must be administered “in the

manner provided by law and as provided by rules of court.” The “provided by law”

requirement generally refers to R.C. Ch. 2735, which governs many aspects of

receiverships, as well as any other relevant statutes. The “rules of court” piece

empowers courts to adopt local rules to further structure receivership proceedings.

Civ.R. 66 effectively incorporates such rules by reference.

{¶34} R.C. 2735.01(A) provides the authority to appoint a receiver. Once

appointed, their receivership continues until the court terminates it. See Milo, 100

Ohio App.3d at 6; Fifth Third, 2013-Ohio-5755, at ¶ 24 (2d Dist.); Hoover-Bond Co. v.

Sun-Glow Indus., Inc., 57 Ohio App. 246, 252 (3d Dist. 1936). In general, discharge of

a receiver and termination of the receivership are proper when, due to a change in

circumstances, “there is no longer any necessity of continuing the receivership.”

3 Clark on Receivers, § 692.1(b), at 1276; see also 65 Am.Jur.2d, Receivers, § 93

(2024); State ex rel. Miller v. Kroger, 235 Ind. 556, 561-562 (1956). And although R.C.

Ch. 2735 does not expressly provide authority to discharge a receiver, “the power to

vacate the appointment is clearly implied in the power to appoint.” See Sloan, 31 Ohio

St. at 12; accord Milo at 6.

{¶35} Here the parties dispute what procedures are required when a court

14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

terminates a receivership. Per Civ.R. 66, if a statute set forth procedures for

discharging receivers, it would govern—so long as it satisfied the basic requirements

of due process. But the Revised Code provides no procedures for discharging a receiver

either generally or in the domestic-relations context. Further, courts could provide

procedures for discharging receivers in local “rules of court.” Id. A number of Ohio’s

courts of common pleas have done just that by promulgating rules that govern the

discharge process.4 Unfortunately, neither the General Division nor the Domestic

Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas have done so.

{¶36} In the absence of a controlling statute or local rule, the Ohio Supreme

Court has said that the “usages of courts of equity” govern “the manner of . . .

discharging receivers.” See Sloan at 12. And, as a leading treatise on receivers explains,

equity requires that “[n]otice [of a proposed discharge] should be given to all parties

to the suit and to creditors interested in the distribution, even in the absence of a

statute or a court rule on the subject.” 3 Clark on Receivers, § 693, at 1277; see also

Miller v. Everest, 212 N.W.2d 522, 524 (Iowa 1973), citing Farmers’ Savs. Bank v.

Pomeroy, 211 Iowa 337, 339 (1930); Atty. Gen. ex rel. Commr. of Ins. v. Lapeer

Farmers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Assn., 318 Mich. 60, 76 (1947) (“Such an account would be

acceptable to the court only after proper notice to interested parties who shall have an

opportunity to be heard thereon.”).

{¶37} Such notice is essential to ensure fundamental fairness and due process.

4 The local rules of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas provide commendable clarity to this

area: “All receivers shall file a final report within 30 days from the time at which their trust and their duties may be regarded as performed and completed,” and any “[e]xceptions to the accounts of receivers . . . must be filed within 20 days after the accounts are filed.” Butler C.P., Gen.Div., Loc.R. 5.19(L), (M). In Montgomery County, the local rules explicitly provide that a hearing to settle the receiver’s accounts should be held “within 30 days of the filing of the receiver’s final inventory.” Mont. Co. C.P.R. 6.10(D). And although the local rules in Franklin County do not include as clear a timeline for objections, they do set forth the manner and timing for filing a receiver’s “final report to the court and creditors,” along with a final fee application. Franklin C.P., Gen.Div., Loc.R. 66.12.

15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Discharging a receiver traditionally involves (1) “fixing of the receiver’s fees,” (2)

“distribution generally of the money in [the receiver’s] hands,” and (3) “accepting of

the receiver’s final report.” 3 Clark on Receivers, § 693, at 1277; 3 id., § 699.1, at 1285

(“on his removal or discharge, the receiver must . . . report and account for all the

property he has received”); Fifth Third, 2013-Ohio-5755, at ¶ 24 (2d Dist.) (“approval

[of the receiver’s final account] ordinarily precedes the receiver’s discharge”). So, any

individual with claims to or against the receivership assets, or who wishes to challenge

the receiver’s fees, must bring their claims prior to discharge. Once discharge is

finalized, such claims may be too late—there will be no more receiver to sue and no

more assets in receivership from which to “satisfy and discharge any judgment that

might be rendered against [the receiver] in his official capacity.” See 2 Clark on

Receivers, § 422, at 708; see also High, A Treatise on the Law of Receivers, § 848, at

994 (4th Ed. 1910);5 Madorsky v. Suburban Homes Co., 45 Ohio App. 83, 85 (8th Dist.

1933); Norman v. Trison Dev. Corp., 1992 OK 67, ¶ 8; Brown v. Gay, 76 Tex. 444, 447

(1890); In re Weldon F. Stump & Co., Inc., 337 B.R. 636, 638 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2005)

(“the discharge of a receiver has the effect of releasing them from any further liability

incident to the receivership”).

{¶38} Morgan argues that notice would have been pointless in this case

because the receivership estate was empty: the house was sold and no proceeds

remained to satisfy any claims. But even where a receivership is insolvent, a court of

equity has tools to redress a wayward receiver’s improper use of receivership assets. A

court of equity could, for example, “surcharg[e] the receiver’s accounts for losses

incurred through the receiver’s mismanagement or negligence,” and then withhold

5 Available at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo1.ark:/13960/t9h429164.

16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

final approval until the receiver has balanced them by paying back the surcharged

amount. See 80 Ohio Jur.3d, § 184 (2026), citing Shawnee Lumber Co. v. Phillips, 29

Ohio Dec. 58, 61-62 (C.P. 1917); 2 Clark on Receivers, § 419, at 706.6

{¶39} We therefore hold that, before a trial court finally discharges a receiver

and terminates a receivership, it must at least provide interested parties notice of its

incipient termination and an opportunity to object. This baseline, rooted in traditional

notions of equity and due process, applies even in the absence of a statute or local rule

providing for more specific procedures, and even if the receivership is insolvent.

b.

{¶40} The question, then, is whether Jones received adequate notice of the

imminent discharge order and opportunity to raise his objections. On the facts of this

case, we hold he did.

{¶41} As we have already noted, both the Ohio Revised Code and the local

rules of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas lack provisions governing the

discharge of receivers. “[I]n the absence of statutory guidance” or a rule of court, “‘the

constitutional due process principle supplies the rule’” for determining adequacy of

notice. See Hunt v. Alderman, 2025-Ohio-2944, ¶ 15, quoting Knickerbocker

Properties, Inc., XLII v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2008-Ohio-3192, ¶ 17. And

6 See also, e.g., Credit Mgrs. Assn. of S. Cal. v. Kennesaw Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 25 F.3d 743, 751 (9th

Cir. 1994), quoting Aviation Brake Sys., Ltd. v. Voorhis, 133 Cal.App.3d 230, 235 (1982) (“‘upon the receiver’s final report and account, the receiver in his personal capacity may be surcharged for losses to the receivership estate based upon his misconduct or mismanagement’”); McPherson v. United States Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Group, 99 S.W.3d 462, 481 (Mo.App. 2003) (holding that “a trial court supervising an insurance company in receivership under the Insolvency Code has the inherent power to surcharge” the account of a “special deputy receiver”); Citizens’ Trust Co. v. Wheeling Can Co., 199 Ind. 311, 317 (1927) (“The court did not err in ordering the receiver to repay to the funds of the receivership the payments which the court found and adjudged to be unauthorized, and which were not approved.”); Haines v. Buckeye Wheel Co., 224 F. 289, 297-298 (6th Cir. 1915) (surcharging receiver’s account so that he would “repay and restore to the trust fund the sum of $2,000 heretofore allowed to him as compensation,” then ordering him to disburse those funds); State ex rel. Pope v. Germania Bank, 103 Minn. 129, 143 (1908).

17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the Constitution guaranteed Jones only “notice reasonably calculated, under all the

circumstances,” to apprise him of the need to present his objections, and a “reasonable

time” in which to do so. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,

314 (1950). In applying this rule, we must have “due regard for the practicalities and

peculiarities of the case.” Id. at 314; see also H3re, L.L.C. v. Anderson, 2020-Ohio-

4974, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.) (“Reasonable notice is determined on a case-by-case basis.”). The

bottom line, as the United State Supreme Court recently reiterated (in a very different

context), is that an individual at risk of losing property or liberty must “receive notice”

of the risk they face “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them

to actually seek . . . relief.” Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 673 (2025) (per curiam);

A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 95 (2025) (per curiam).

{¶42} We begin by noting that, ideally, the domestic-relations court would

have provided notice that was explicit and unambiguous. For example, the domestic-

relations court could have set forth deadlines in its order appointing or describing the

duties of the receiver. Or it might have issued an entry notifying the parties that the

receiver had filed its final report and ordering them to object by a date certain or

forever hold their peace.

{¶43} The procedures in this case, however, were not ideal. Still, if Jones had

(1) actual or constructive notice from which a reasonable person would have

understood he needed to promptly object to the receiver’s discharge or account and

(2) a reasonable time in which to raise such objections, then the requirements of due

process were satisfied, and the domestic-relations court could discharge the receiver.

{¶44} Morgan’s motion to discharge the receiver, which would ordinarily have

constituted sufficient notice, was insufficient in this case. Morgan admits that she

never properly served Jones with her December 16 motion, and the record does not

18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

show that Jones actually received a copy in a timely manner. And even if Jones

received actual notice of Morgan’s motion, the two days between it and the domestic-

relations court’s December 18 discharge order would not have been sufficient

opportunity to respond in this case. Compare Lindsay v. Jackson, 2000 Ohio App.

LEXIS 4043, *8 (1st Dist. Sep. 8, 2000) (“courts have held that notice provided on the

same day as the hearing is insufficient to meet the requirements of due process”);

A.A.R.P. at 95 (“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal,

devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal,

surely does not pass muster.”).

{¶45} Rather, we hold that, on the particular facts and “peculiarities of [this]

case,” the November 27, 2024 filing of the receiver’s final report provided Jones with

the necessary notice. The document’s caption, “FINAL REPORT OF RECEIVER,

CERTIFICATE AND REPORT OF SALE,” clearly indicated that the receiver believed

there was nothing left for it to do. And its contents made clear that the logical next step

was discharge, absent objections.

{¶46} The final report indicated that the purpose of the receivership was

complete and that no receivership assets remained for disbursal. The purpose of the

receivership was to facilitate the division of marital property by selling the house. The

house had been the only asset in receivership, and the report states that it was sold.

And the final report explained that there were no proceeds to disburse: after paying

the receiver, closing costs, and creditors, “[t]he receivership estate no longer

contain[ed] any assets,” “was insolvent,” and contained “no funds derived from

income from the Property.”

{¶47} The report also settled the question of fees. The settlement statement

detailed the outstanding fees owed to the receiver, which the statement indicated were

19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

already paid. The fees set forth in the settlement statement aligned with the six percent

commission the receiver had been promised in the appointment order.7 The statement

indicated that the receiver claimed $5,623.79 in reimbursement for expenses. And the

statement indicated that all of these fees and expenses had been fully paid. The

receiver indicated no remaining balance.

{¶48} Thus, the receiver’s final report indicated (1) that the purpose of the

receivership had run its course, (2) that the receivership was insolvent and contained

no assets, (3) that there were no assets for the receiver to disburse, and (4) that the

receiver claimed fees of $51,000 (for itself and the real-estate broker) and expenses of

$5,623.79, which were already paid. While the report may not have taken the final step

of explicitly requesting discharge, a reasonable person under these circumstances

would have known that approval and discharge were all that remained. By filing the

final report, the receiver effectively put the question of discharge in play.

{¶49} And unlike Morgan’s December 16 discharge motion, the final report

was properly served on Jones. The certificate of service attached to Morgan’s notice of

the receiver’s final report, which included the report itself as an attachment, indicated

that Jones and his then-attorney were served by email on November 27, 2024. Jones

concedes in his brief that “[o]n November 27, 2024, Morgan filed and served” the final

report.

{¶50} We hold that, on the facts of this case, Jones received adequate notice

of the need to raise objections or request a more detailed accounting on November 27,

2024, when he was served with receiver’s final report.

{¶51} We further hold that, under the same facts, the 21 days between the

7 The commissions paid to Prodigy and “Sibcy Cline Realtors (Hyde Park)” totaled $51,000, which

is six percent of the $850,000 sale price.

20 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

November 27 final report and the December 18 discharge order constituted an

adequate opportunity for Jones to file any objections. Although the domestic-relations

court did not prescribe a set time for filing objections in advance, we find instructive

Hamilton Cty. C.P., Gen.Div., Loc.R. 14(B), which requires that “[a]ny memorandum

contra” a motion (other than for summary judgment) be filed “within fourteen days”

from the date the party was served with the memorandum in support of that motion.8

We also take into consideration the fact that Jones never sought the domestic-

relations court’s leave to file any claims against the receiver, nor indicated a specific

intent to do so. Compare PNC Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Kidz Real Estate Group, L.L.C.,

2013-Ohio-1357, ¶ 16-19 (6th Dist.) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by

discharging receiver without holding a hearing on outstanding motion for leave to file

a complaint); Bancohio Natl. Bank v. Southland Lanes, Inc., 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS

1828 (3d Dist. May. 12, 1988) (holding similarly under similar circumstances).

{¶52} We reject Jones’s suggestions that he was entitled to an oral evidentiary

hearing. We agree that, to be meaningful, a litigant must be afforded an opportunity

to submit evidence in support of their objections. But no statute mandates that this

take the form of an oral proceeding. Courts frequently resolve evidentiary matters on

paper submissions, and we cannot see why equity—which, in its most traditional form,

relied upon depositions, interrogatories, and written accountings9—would demand

something more. Of course, if a court rule or relevant statute promises an oral

evidentiary hearing before discharge, then one must be provided. Compare, e.g., Fifth

Third, 2013-Ohio-5755, at ¶ 54 (2d Dist.) (requiring oral evidentiary hearing because

8 The Domestic Relations Division has no time-for-filing rule of its own. 9 See Baker, Introduction to English Legal History, 112 (5th Ed. 2019); Bruhl, Law and Equity on

Appeal, 124 Colum.L.Rev. 2307, 2335-2336 (2024). But see Bruhl at 2338-2339 (noting that the first congress permitted federal courts sitting as courts of equity to take evidence by live testimony).

21 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

local rule applied statutory procedures for settling executors/administrators of

decedents’ estates to receivership accounts). But absent such specificity, “the decision

whether to hold an oral evidentiary hearing is left to the discretion of the trial court.”

See State v. Bostick, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5559, ¶ 19. Because Jones never

explained to the domestic-relations court why an oral evidentiary hearing was

required, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold one.

{¶53} In sum: we hold that the receiver put the issue of discharge in play by

filing the final report on November 27, and that the 21 days following it provided an

adequate opportunity to respond. If, after seeing the report, Jones believed a more

thorough accounting was in order, he should have asked for one then. If he believed

that the receiver’s expenses were dubious, he should have objected. And if he had

claims against the receiver, he should have brought them. The domestic-relations

court allowed him three weeks to do so—more than the usual time to oppose a motion.

Hearing no objections, it approved the receiver’s account as-is and discharged the

receiver. Without a controlling rule or statute to provide hard deadlines, we cannot say

that this was contrary to the usages of equity, deprived Jones of due process, or

constituted an abuse of discretion.

2. Challenged Provisions of the Discharge Order

{¶54} In addition to his objections to the manner in which the discharge order

was entered, Jones contends that several provisions in the discharge order were

improper. Specifically, he challenges the provisions (1) finding that the receiver acted

in good faith, (2) approving the receiver’s fees, (3) releasing the receiver and others

from liability, (4) permitting the receiver to turn over any receivership assets that

might later come into its possession, and (5) imposing certain ongoing obligations on

the parties.

22 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶55} First, Jones contends that, without a hearing, the domestic-relations

court should not have found that the receiver “acted in good faith, with all due ordinary

care, and consistent with sound business judgment” or that the receiver’s actions

“were entirely proper, reasonable, necessary, and were of direct benefit to the

Receivership Assets and all parties to this action.” But these are standard findings

upon a receiver’s discharge. If the court thought matters were otherwise, it would be

derelict in discharging the receiver without first surcharging its account or otherwise

holding it responsible. If Jones had reason to believe that the receiver’s actions were

not in good faith, he had a responsibility to bring that to the domestic-relations court’s

attention, especially once the “final report” was submitted. He didn’t.

{¶56} In the absence of such objections, we recognize that the receiver was the

domestic-relations court’s agent, and that the domestic-relations court had consistent

supervision over the receiver’s actions. See Forest City Invest. Co. v. Haas, 110 Ohio

St. 188, 192-193 (1924) (a receiver “is an officer of the court, his possession the

possession of the court, and the appointment is made in order to conserve the interests

of the litigants with respect to the property in custodia legis”); Hummer v. Hummer,

2011-Ohio-3767, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.) (“[T]he receiver is the arm of the court and is at all

times subject to the court’s order and direction.”). The domestic-relations court was

therefore in a unique position to make findings about the good faith of its agent. If,

after discharge, some previously unavailable evidence of bad faith should come to

light, Civ.R. 60(B) supplies a safety valve. But Jones was not entitled to an evidentiary

hearing prior to discharge to fish for evidence of bad faith.

{¶57} Second, Jones challenges the domestic-relations court’s approval of the

expenditures, costs, and payments of the receiver as reasonable. He contends that the

findings are “unsupported by any facts and evidence.” But these findings, even more

23 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

so than the finding of good-faith—are essential prerequisites to discharge; a receiver

cannot be finally discharged if their account remains open or their fees remain

unsettled. See 3 Clark on Receivers, § 693, at 1277. The domestic-relations court

supervised its receiver and found the receiver’s expenses reasonable. Again, if Jones

believed otherwise, it was incumbent upon him to say so. And if Jones did not believe

the data provided in the receiver’s reports were adequate, it was incumbent upon him

to request a more thorough accounting. When he made no such timely request, the

domestic-relations court could proceed to discharge the receiver.

{¶58} Third, Jones asserts that various liability-release provisions in the

discharge order were “patently unconscionable.” The domestic-relations court’s

discharge order stated:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver, as well as its

employees, agents, contractors, consultants, accountants, and

attorneys, are discharged from all further duties, liabilities, and

responsibilities relating to the Receivership Assets without further

liability or obligation, and no person shall have any further claim

against the Receiver, its employees, agents, contractors, consultants,

accountants, and attorneys, [Morgan], or the Receivership Assets, on

account of or related to this Court’s Orders or the Receiver’s actions or

inactions with respect to the Receivership Assets.

The language is broad, but its effect is specific. It discharges liability “relating to the

Receivership Assets” and extinguishes claims “on account of or related to” the

domestic-relations court’s order or the receiver’s actions “with respect to the

Receivership Assets.” We read this language as a release of official-capacity liability

to or from the receivership. Such a release is essentially hortatory: no claim may be

24 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

brought by a receivership that no longer exists, nor can any claim be brought against

a receiver in their official capacity once the receiver is discharged. See Fifth Third,

2013-Ohio-5755, at ¶ 30 (2d Dist.); 2 Clark on Receivers, § 422, at 708; see also

Madorsky, 45 Ohio App. at 85-86.

{¶59} Reading the liability-release provision as concerning official-capacity

liability is the only way to make sense of its inclusion of Morgan’s name. Obviously

Morgan would not generally have individual liability “on account of or related to [the

domestic-relations] Court’s Orders or the Receiver’s actions or inactions with respect

to the Receivership Assets.” But, traditionally, when a receiver’s appointment was

annulled or abrogated, rather than vacated or discharged, equity held “the party who

procured the appointment liable for the expense incurred over what it would have been

if a receiver had not been appointed.” 2 Clark on Receivers, § 422, at 708. In other

words, when a receiver was wrongfully appointed, the party who sought the

appointment may assume liability for actions taken in the receiver’s official capacity.

Compare Taintor v. St. John, 50 Mont. 358, 360 (1915) (“Where the order vacating

the appointment [of the receiver] operates merely as the discharge of a receiver, both

the receiver and the party who secured his appointment are relieved from liability for

the acts of the receiver, whereas, if the order is vacated in the sense of being annulled,

the receiver and the party securing his appointment will be regarded as wrongdoers.”).

{¶60} The liability-release provision makes sense only against this backdrop.

Morgan had sought the receiver. To avoid any confusion as to whether she might

assume liability for the receiver’s official actions, the domestic-relations court made

clear that no such claim should be brought against her. Thus, we hold that the liability-

release provision did no more than release the named individuals from official-

capacity liability, and that this was entirely proper as part of a discharge order.

25 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶61} Fourth, Jones challenges a provision of the discharge order stating that,

if “any assets” should “come into the Receiver’s hands that would have been the subject

of this Receivership, the Receiver is authorized to turn those assets over to the

purchaser of the Receivership Assets without further order of the Court,” so long as

the receiver notifies the court and parties of this fact. Jones contends that this “is an

obvious attempt by Morgan and/or the Receiver to allow conversion/theft of Jones’

very valuable personal property,” over which he claims the domestic-relations court

had “no jurisdiction.” We disagree. This clause was clearly pro forma—meant to

provide for quick resolution and procedural safeguards, should the receiver stumble

across receivership assets it failed to properly convey. Given that the house was the

only asset in receivership in this case, we cannot think of how this provision would

come into play. But whatever its effect may be, this provision certainly would not

permit transfer of Jones’s personal property to the buyers of the home, as such

property would not “have been the subject of [the] Receivership.”10 And even if the

receiver misapplied the provision to permit conveyance of Jones’s personal property

to the buyers, it would have to notify Jones, giving him an opportunity to object.

{¶62} Fifth, and finally, Jones challenges a provision terminating the

receivership “subject to the continual obligations of the parties to act in accordance

with this Order.” Jones contends that his “continual obligation” means that the

receivership could not have been “unconditionally and finally terminated.” Jones is

right, insofar as he contends that a receivership is not finally terminated if it “leaves

10 A prior order of the domestic-relations court did state that any personal property left in the home

at time of sale would be deemed abandoned. But abandonment would simply divest Jones of title, so that ownership would pass to the first person to reduce the property to possession. See Wyman v. Hurlburt, 12 Ohio 81, 87 (1843); Staley v. Phillips, 2022-Ohio-2112, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.). Abandonment would not make the property “the subject of this Receivership.” Thus, this provision would have no application.

26 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

unresolved matters that the receiver must address.” Fifth Third, 2013-Ohio-5755, at

¶ 25 (2d Dist.). But the “continual obligation[s]” placed upon the parties in this case

did not impair the court’s ability to finally discharge the receiver. The discharge order

left no assets in the receivership, left no matters for the receiver to address, and made

clear the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the former receivership assets.

Compare Fontain, 2021-Ohio-2750, at ¶ 27 (1st Dist.); Taylor v. Easton, 180 F. 363,

367-368 (8th Cir. 1910). These “continual obligation[s]” were not in the nature of

ongoing receivership duties, but more in the nature of an injunction, tailored to ensure

the parties could not undo the receiver’s work.

{¶63} We therefore find no fault in the challenged provisions of the domestic-

relations court’s discharge order.

3. Other Issues

{¶64} Jones also claims the discharge order is invalid for a number of other

reasons. None are meritorious.

{¶65} Jones contends that the sale and discharge orders were invalid because

neither Jeff Lane nor Prodigy were properly appointed as receiver. But Jones has

already appealed the domestic-relations court’s March 29, 2023 order substituting

Prodigy as receiver. He lost. See Jones VII, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3994, at *2. And to

the extent Jones now attacks the oath signed by Lane on April 4, 2023, rather than the

March 29 substitution order itself, that issue is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Both orders merged into the order confirming the sale, which Jones appealed in Jones

VII. Thus, he is precluded from relitigating the question of Lane/Prodigy’s

appointment. See State v. Roberts, 2013-Ohio-4580, ¶ 95 (issues that a party “could

have, and should have, raised” in a prior appeal are barred by res judicata); Pioneer

Automotive, L.L.C. v. Village Gate, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-4501, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.) (res

27 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

judicata applies both in subsequent actions and subsequent appeals from orders in the

same action).

{¶66} Jones contends it was improper to permit the receiver to take a

commission from the sale of the property as a fee. But this fee arrangement was

established in the March 29, 2023 order substituting Prodigy as receiver. Again, Jones

had the opportunity to challenge that order in Jones VII, so his challenge is barred by

res judicata.

{¶67} Jones contends that the briefing on the receiver’s 2023 motion to

authorize the sale of the property was never completed and that matters in Jones’s

“pre-hearing status report,” dated December 10, 2023, and filed January 3, 2024, were

not addressed. But both the adequacy of sale-motion briefing and the concerns raised

in Jones’s prehearing status report concerned the domestic-relations court’s January

2, 2024 sale order. We have already upheld that order in Jones VII. So these issues,

too, are foreclosed under the doctrine of res judicata.

* * *

{¶68} Having found no merit in any of Jones’s arguments for reversing the

December 19, 2024 discharge order, we overrule Jones’s second assignment of error.

III. MORGAN’S SANCTIONS MOTION

{¶69} On September 15, 2025, Morgan filed a motion to strike Jones’s

principal brief and to impose sanctions on the ground that Jones’s brief cited two cases

that do not exist. On October 10, a motions panel denied Morgan’s motion to strike

but elected to leave the question of sanctions for consideration by this panel. After

consideration, we now exercise our discretion to deny Morgan’s motion for sanctions.

{¶70} Civ.R. 11, which authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions for certain

improper filings, does not apply to appeals. See Civ.R. 1(C); Estate of Garza v. Onesto,

28 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2016-Ohio-5531, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.). However, Ohio’s courts of appeals do have authority

under App.R. 23 to order an appellant “to pay reasonable expenses of the appellee” if

they find “that an appeal is frivolous.” And we possess inherent authority to impose

sanctions “‘where that party’s conduct thwarts the administration of justice, disobeys

court orders, abuses the judicial process, or when it is otherwise necessary for the

administration of justice and protection of judicial powers and processes.’” Smith v.

Gamble, 2025-Ohio-2381, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.), quoting DiCuccio v. Lindsmith, 2018-

Ohio-2320, ¶ 30 (10th Dist.). See generally State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965, ¶ 39-

50 (11th Dist.) (chronicling the history, source, and limits of the inherent sanctions

authority of Ohio’s courts of appeals).

{¶71} This court has exercised its inherent authority in part by promulgating

Loc.R. 23(A), which reads as follows:

If the First District Court of Appeals, sua sponte or on motion by

a party, determines that an appeal, original action, or motion is frivolous

or is prosecuted for delay, harassment, or any other improper purpose,

it may impose on the person who signed the appeal, original action, or

motion, a represented party, or both, appropriate sanctions. The

sanctions may include an award to the opposing party of reasonable

expenses, reasonable attorney fees, costs or double costs, or any other

sanction the First District Court of Appeals considers just. An appeal,

original action, or motion shall be considered frivolous if it is not

reasonably well-grounded in fact, or warranted by existing law, or by a

good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of

existing law.

Morgan argues that Jones’s “phantom cases” warrant sanctions under this provision.

29 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶72} At the threshold, we find that the two citations Morgan identified were

clearly “bogus” or “phantom” cases. On page 22 on his brief, Jones cited “City of

Columbus v. Edwards-Bosh v. Tri-County Toyota, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-

1042, 2008-Ohio-4320, ¶ 13-16,” as an example of a case in which “the Tenth District

held that a post-judgment indemnification order against cross-claim defendants

required an evidentiary hearing.” No such case exists. We could find no case with the

odd three-party caption provided by Jones. The webcite he offered points to Wilson v.

Eberlin, 2008-Ohio-4320 (7th Dist.), an opinion with a different name from a

different court that has no paragraph 13 and says nothing about indemnification. And

a search of the Franklin County Clerk of Courts’ online records suggests that the only

Tenth District case numbered 07AP-1042 is State of Ohio v. Shawn Mills, a criminal

case in which the Tenth District denied leave to appeal without publishing an opinion.

{¶73} On the same page of his brief, Jones also cited “State ex rel. Ohio

Turnpike Comm’n v. Indus. Comm’n, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2980, ¶ 22,” as

a case in which “the Supreme Court, in mandamus, emphasized that due process

dictates ‘an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’

before an order imposing financial security is entered.” An opinion bearing the caption

Jones provided exists, but it was published in 2009 (not 2006) by the Tenth District

(not the Ohio Supreme Court). See State ex rel. Ohio Turnpike Comm. v. Indus.

Comm., 2009-Ohio-468 (10th Dist.). The webcite Jones provided points to a different

court of appeals decision, Santee v. Mansell, 2006-Ohio-2980 (9th Dist.). And when

one opens to the 313th page of the 109th volume of the Ohio State Reports, Third

Series, one finds In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 2006-Ohio-2109.

None of these three opinions include the passage Jones quoted.

{¶74} Morgan suggests that these phantom cases may be artifacts from the use

30 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of generative artificial-intelligence (“AI”) software drawing upon large language

models. Appellate courts across Ohio and the country have experienced a surge of

filings with such “hallucinations”—i.e., false citations proffered as true by generative

AI.11 Jones neither confirms nor denies the allegation that he relied on AI; he merely

states that the bogus cases “were the result of [his] chasing case law threads from other

cases and not keeping close track of the situation.”

{¶75} We are inclined to agree with Morgan: Jones’s citations bear the

hallmarks of AI hallucinations. No part of either citation refers to a real case remotely

related to the proposition for which it is cited. If Jones had real cases in mind, he surely

would have provided them in his opposition to Morgan’s motion. And if Jones had

fabricated his bogus cases the old-fashioned way, we doubt he would have opted for

an odd, three-party caption like “City of Columbus v. Edwards-Bosh v. Tri-County

Toyota.”

{¶76} This court now has a rule about the use of AI. See Loc.R. 45. In it, we

make clear that attorneys and parties using generative AI “are responsible for ensuring

that all legal arguments, factual assertions, evidence, and citations are accurate,

relevant, and comply with applicable laws, procedural rules, and ethical obligations,”

and that the submission of “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated AI-generated

content” may result in “strik[ing] the filing and/or impos[ing] sanctions on the

attorney or party.” Loc.R. 45(B) and (C).

{¶77} But Loc.R. 45 was not in place when Jones filed his brief. The use of

11 See, e.g., Gamble v. Gamble, 2025-Ohio-2381, ¶ 25-28 (12th Dist.); Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965

(11th Dist.); Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 613-616 (2d Cir. 2024); Garces v. Hernandez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 21220, *3-4 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025); Moore v. Del City, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 31411 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025); Shahid v. Esaam, 376 Ga.App. 145 (2025); In re S.M., 2025 IL App (4th) 250277-U, ¶ 28-34; Williams v. Kirch, 268 N.E.3d 284, 288 (Ind.App. 2025); Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo.App. 2024). This survey is far from complete, but it provides a flavor of the problem’s prevalence in the last two years.

31 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

fabricated citations is clearly a breach of a party’s responsibilities to the court. But our

general sanctions rule, Loc.R. 23(A), focuses on whether “an appeal, original action,

or motion is frivolous or is prosecuted for delay, harassment, or any other improper

purpose.” The submission of a brief containing AI hallucinations does not inherently

fit these descriptions.

{¶78} In the end, we have discretion to determine whether sanctions are

warranted in a particular case. Although we could sanction Jones under our inherent

authority, we choose not to do so because (1) we had not yet promulgated Loc.R. 45

when Jones filed the offending brief, and (2) a limited number of his citations (only

two) were to “phantom” cases.

{¶79} We caution Jones and others who would submit fabricated citations in

their briefs that the promulgation of Loc.R. 45 makes such leniency unlikely moving

forward. The rules now provide litigants with clear notice of their duties in this area—

and of the potential consequences, should those duties be breached. With these words

of warning, we deny Morgan’s September 15, 2025 motion for sanctions.

IV. MORGAN’S VEXATIOUS-LITIGATOR MOTION

{¶80} Finally, on December 19, 2025, Morgan moved this court to declare

Jones a vexatious litigator under Loc.R. 23.

{¶81} “If a party habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause

engages in frivolous conduct under” Loc.R. 23(A), this court may “find the party to be

a vexatious litigator” and “impose filing restrictions on the party.” Loc.R. 23(B).

Loc.R. 23(A) permits us to sanction an attorney or party if we determine “that an

appeal, original action, or motion is frivolous or is prosecuted for delay, harassment,

or any other improper purpose.” An appeal, action, or motion is “frivolous if it is not

reasonably well-grounded in fact, or warranted by existing law, or by a good faith

32 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Loc.R. 23(A).

{¶82} A vexatious litigator, whether under this rule or under R.C. 2323.52,

“must seek leave of court to proceed with any appeal or original action” in this court.

Loc.R. 23(C). In addition, we may restrict a vexatious litigator’s ability to file in this

court “without the filing fee or security for costs,” or may impose “any other restriction

the [court] considers just.” Loc.R. 23(B).

{¶83} Although this court has no opinions applying our vexatious-litigator

rule, we have previously addressed the analogous frivolous-conduct and vexatious-

litigator statutes, R.C. 2323.51 and 2323.52. Those statutes, like our rule, identify as

frivolous conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another

party to the civil action,” or that “is imposed solely for delay.” R.C. 2323.52(A)(2)(a)

and (b). Under these provisions, we have said that “[i]t is the nature of the conduct,

not the number of actions, which determines whether a person is a ‘vexatious

litigator,’” but that the “number of actions” is nevertheless “relevant to whether a

person habitually and persistently engages in vexatious conduct.” Stephens v.

Downtown Prop. Mgmt., 2023-Ohio-1988, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). And we have described as

“[v]exatious conduct” a litigant’s “‘filing unnecessary, inappropriate or supernumerary

pleadings and motions which raise or re-raise arguments that have been repeatedly

rejected by the courts,’” or the “‘consistent repetition of arguments and legal theories

that have been rejected by the court numerous times.’” Id., quoting Howdyshell v.

Battle, 2019-Ohio-5232, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.), and Prime Equip. Group, Inc. v. Schmidt,

2016-Ohio-3472, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.).

{¶84} Here, we confront Jones’s eleventh appeal since October 2019. All 11

33 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

appeals were taken from the same divorce proceeding.12 Nine of those appeals were

noticed within a two-and-a-half-year span (from July 28, 2021, to January 29, 2024).

{¶85} Most of Jones’s appeals have been dismissed. We dismissed part of

Jones’s appeal numbered C-210408 because the order he challenged was

interlocutory. Jones II, 2022-Ohio-1831, at ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). We dismissed two more of

his appeals in their entirety for that reason, too. See Dismissal Entry, Morgan v. Jones,

No. C-220124 (1st Dist. June 24, 2022) (“Jones III”); Entry of Dismissal, Morgan v.

Jones, No. C-230210 (1st Dist. Aug. 17, 2023) (“Jones V”). And we dismissed four more

of Jones’s appeals—filed on various dates between May 6, 2022, and November 28,

2022—because Jones failed to timely file a brief, despite repeated extensions of time.

See Entry of Dismissal, Morgan v. Jones, Nos. C-220205, C-220377, C-220476, and

C-220594 (1st Dist. Apr. 11, 2023) (“Jones IV”). Most recently, we dismissed the

appeal Jones filed pro se on behalf of his trust, on the ground that Jones was not

licensed to practice law in Ohio. Jones VI, No. C-240067 (1st Dist.).

{¶86} Jones has lost every appeal we have not dismissed, including this one.

See Jones I, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3200; Jones II at ¶ 2; Jones VII, 2024 Ohio App.

LEXIS 3994.

{¶87} Morgan notes that Jones’s appeals have often sought to relitigate issues

this court has already resolved. Jones’s briefs in this case, for example, argue that the

domestic-relations court never validly appointed Jeff Lane and Prodigy as receiver.

We held over a year ago that “Jones’s arguments challenging the trial court’s March

29, 2023 order substituting a receiver for the [house] are not well-taken.” Jones VII at

12 While all 11 appeals are matters of public record, we note that they are also part of the record in

this very appeal. The various notices of appeal and decisions of this court were included in the papers and the certified transcript of the docket and journal entries comprising the record on appeal. See App.R. 9(A)(1).

34 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

*3. Further, his briefs again question the propriety of the domestic-relations court’s

2023 order authorizing the sale of the house, which this court has held he lacks

standing to challenge. See id. at *4.

{¶88} Morgan also contends that Jones has prosecuted his appeals for delay

and harassment. Jones’s history of delay is striking. In the consolidated appeals

dismissed in Jones IV, for example, Jones sought and received numerous extensions

of time to file his opening brief. Specifically, in the appeal numbered C-220205, this

court initially ordered Jones to file a brief by July 25, 2022. Many extensions later, this

court imposed a hard and final deadline of April 4, 2023, for Jones’s brief. We warned

Jones that he would receive no further extensions, and that his appeal would be

dismissed if he failed to comply. Undaunted, Jones filed two more motions asking to

extend his time to file. When these went ungranted, Jones filed a brief on April 11—a

week after the final deadline and 260 days after it was originally due. We declined to

accept this brief and dismissed the appeal.

{¶89} But while Jones’s conduct may be “vexatious” in the colloquial sense, we

find that he does not meet the definition set forth in Loc.R. 23. For the past six years,

Jones has appealed to this court in repeated attempts to avoid the consequences of his

actions below. But those appeals have not been wholly frivolous. Even our dismissals

for failure to timely file a brief in Jones IV cited only App.R. 18(C) and made no

frivolousness findings under Loc.R. 23(A).

{¶90} And whatever his prior conduct, we do not believe this appeal was

wholly frivolous. Jones’s notice-and-opportunity argument, while ultimately

unavailing, had a good-faith basis in law and fact. That much is clear from the lengthy

discussion and wide-ranging survey of authorities in Part II.B.1 of this opinion. No on-

point case offered an easy answer, and, as we acknowledged in Part II.B.1.b, the

35 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

domestic-relations court did not follow best practices for ensuring unambiguous

notice. Further, some of Jones’s arguments regarding the terms of the discharge order

were not frivolous. For example, in Part II.B.2 we held that the provision releasing

Morgan from liability relating to the receivership was proper—but only by reading the

provision’s seemingly broad text in the context of historical receivership liability

principles. Jones could certainly bring a good-faith challenge to the provision’s

eyebrow-raising language.

{¶91} We therefore find that Morgan has not shown that Jones “habitually,

persistently, and without reasonable cause engage[d] in frivolous conduct” under

Loc.R. 23(B). Jones’s appeals may have been habitual and persistent. Particular issues

raised in those appeals may have been baseless. But we cannot say Jones’s appeals

were habitually, persistently, and entirely frivolous or without cause. See Loc.R. 23(B).

We therefore deny Morgan’s motion to declare Jones a vexatious litigator.

V. CONCLUSION

{¶92} For the foregoing reasons, we (1) hold that Jones’s motion for a new trial

was a legal nullity, vacate as void the domestic-relations court’s March 21, 2025 order

denying it, and hold that the first assignment of error is moot, (2) overrule Jones’s

second assignment of error and affirm the domestic-relations court’s December 19,

2024 order discharging the receiver, (3) deny Morgan’s September 15, 2025 motion

for sanctions, and (4) deny Morgan’s December 19, 2025 motion to declare Jones a

vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.R. 23(B).

Judgment accordingly.

KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.