[Cite as In re Estate of Copeland, 2018-Ohio-4271.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
ESTATE OF: CHARLES A. COPELAND, : MEMORANDUM OPINION
DECEASED
:
CASE NO. 2018-L-082
Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 ES 1334.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Robert S. Rosplock, Rosplock & Perez, Interstate Square Building I, 4230 State Route
306, Suite 240, Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Appellee, Donna Copeland).
Charles D. Copeland, pro se, 2231 Waltham Place, Canton, OH 44706 (Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
{¶1} This matter is before this court upon a pro se notice of appeal filed by
Charles Copeland from a June 13, 2018 entry appointing Donna F. Copeland as
Executor of the Estate of Charles A. Copeland, Deceased. The appeal is dismissed.
{¶2} Ohio Appellate Rule 16(A) provides that the appellant shall include in its
brief, inter alia, “(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with
reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected; and (4) A statement of
the issues presented for review, with references to the assignments of error to which
each issue relates.”
{¶3} Pursuant to this court’s Local Rule 16(C)(1), “[i]t is to be noted that the full
statement of the Assignments of Error and Issues Presented for Review in the Table of
Contents shall be deemed a satisfactory compliance with Ohio App.R. 16(A)(3) and (4),
as applicable.” Additionally, in the Argument portion of the appellate brief, “[t]he
Assignments of Error shall be fully set forth verbatim, as shall the Issues Presented for
Review, as stated in the Table of Contents. The Assignments of Error shall assert
precisely the manner in which the trial court is alleged to have erred[.]” Local Rule
16(C)(4).
{¶4} Failure to comply with Local Rule 16 “may result in the brief being stricken
on motion or sua sponte, and/or in the dismissal of the appeal, without prior notice in
either instance.” Local Rule 16(E). Pro se litigants are bound by these rules and
procedures the same as those litigants who retain counsel. Snype v. Cost, 11th Dist.
Portage No. 2012-P-0001, 2012-Ohio-3892, ¶6 (citation omitted).
{¶5} Here, Mr. Copeland failed to include both a statement of the assignments
of error and a statement of the issues presented for review. Mr. Copeland clearly
objects to the appointment of the executor, but he provides no decipherable argument
as to why. His appellate brief is rife with pictures, cartoons, and unfitting accusations
directed at parties not relevant to this appeal.
{¶6} Mr. Copeland’s fundamental failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate
Procedure and this court’s Local Rules wholly prevents any appellate review of this
matter. “Even if an argument exists to support [appellant’s] claim, the court has neither
the legal nor the ethical obligation to assert it for [him].” Natl. City Bank v. Slink &
Taylor, LLC, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2002-P-0045, 2003-Ohio-6693, ¶26.
2
{¶7} Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 16(E), this appeal is hereby
dismissed, sua sponte.
{¶8} Appeal dismissed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., dissents.
3