wouldn't that be something the judge would take issue with?

If an attorney types/makes a motion on behalf of their client that contains a blatant lie, and the judge follows up with an order based on that lie how long does it usually take to get back to the judge?

When I say lie, I mean the motion said plaintiff was no longer doing something, when they were in fact still doing exactly what they said they stopped doing.  This is 2 courts in the same county.  1 plaintiff, 2 different attorneys, 2 different defendants.  Seems as if the plaintiff didnt tell first attorney they hired another attorney to do what the first attorney said they stopped doing, with a 2 month overlap.

It's more complicated than that.  

I'm wondering more how Judges treat being lied to because in this example, the plaintiff and their attorney is going to have to go back to that same judge, and apply for that judge to undo the very thing the plaintiff lied about saying they weren't doing because they never stopped doing it. All because this judges permission to do it is mandatory.

ETA: The lie is just icing on the actual issue.

The plaintiff fucked themselves and gave me a HUGE gift. For them to proceed they basically need 2 free do overs from 2 judges, and a statute of limitations.. Their attorneys are going to have to do more work.

Maybe.

Sorry, forgot about this thread.

So, yes this my case.   The plaintillf hired a law firm to open a "wrongful death only" estate to sue the boyfriend who gave their daughter the gun.  He had no insurance so they never filed against him.

They later found a different  firm who is a spotlight donor to the brady campaign to sue me.  

They filed on me in June.  In September the plaintiff and original attorney closed the estate stating they were no longer pursuing a wrongful death claim.

So from September to April, the firm coming after me had no client because when the estate was closed the administrator was released.

My attorneys filed for dismissal because they had no standing to bring the action without an open estate.

When the bad guys say the motion they went back to Probate and told the judge it was closed by mistake, and the plaintiff had no idea it was closed by the original attorney.

Probate Judge said, fine and reopened the estate.

Bad guys are requesting the motion to dismiss be shit canned because the estate is back open.

I'm sure my attorneys will answer their request, but the million dollar question is, how will the Judge rule?  The Bad guys said closing estates and having to reopen happens all the time.  (I think these circumstances are different)

I'm hoping the judge looks at the 7 months of motions and meetings the bad guy attorneys made and set dates representing a plaintiff that didn't exist and tells them to pound sand.  How could they file a motion on behalf of an estate, when there was no estate to file on behalf of?

If the original firm did as they say and closed the estate without telling the plaintiff, they should sue that attorney for malpractice.  

Motion to Dismiss

Dismissal Response

I read the reply memorandum in response to the bad guys request to not dismiss the suit.   I'll post the full text of it tomorrow.


My attorney is basically saying there was no accidental closing of the estate by the probate court. The plaintiff requested it be closed, the court closed it and released the administrator.
 The nunc pro tunc doesn't apply to reopening the estate because it can't change the court's order that closed the estate.  And it happens it was closed after the statute of limitations expired.

Apparently the plaintiff didn't lie - and my attorney wants to make sure they got exactly what they asked for

Is  nunc pro tunc a free do over as the plaintiff says, or are my guys right?   If my guys are right it looks like SOL has expired and this could be done soon if the Judge agrees.


Plaintiff’s decedent died on July 8, 2020. The period of limitation for her wrongful death claim expired on July 8, 2022. On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff, not the Probate Court, moved to have the estate dismissed, not for any clerical error but because she no longer wished to pursue the present action, according to her motion. The estate was closed eliminating any authority on the part of Plaintiff to pursue the present wrongful death claim. Because Plaintiff had no authority to represent the estate, any action filed by her is a nullity and should be dismissed as the Court has no jurisdiction over such a matter. Burchett v. Larkin, 192 Ohio App.3d 418, 2011-Ohio-684, 949 N.E.2d 516 (4th Dist.)

Plaintiff claims that she has solved the problem by re-opening the estate and having the Court issue a nunc pro tunc order that the re-opening relates back to the date the estate was closed. Plaintiff did not provide an affidavit explaining her actions in wanting to dismiss the estate or claiming that she made an error in doing so or that the Court erred in granting her the relief that she requested.



10, quoting Scaglione v. Saridakis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91490, 2009-Ohio-4702, ¶ 9. And:



Thus, the Probate Court’s signing of the order crafted by Plaintiff’s counsel is improper as it changes the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Estate. In other words, the mistake was not that of the Probate Court, but the Plaintiff, if she did not mean to tell the Court that she wanted the Estate dismissed as she no longer wished to pursue the present action.

Providing an improper order to the Probate Court does not solve the problem with the lack of authority to pursue this action. And doesn’t correct the problem with the fact that the period of limitations had expired when Plaintiff asked the Probate Court to dismiss the estate.


Plaintiff’s effort to save this matter based upon a procedurally improper action in the Probate Court should not be accepted by this Court. Nor should either Court consider that there is a relation back of the nunc pro tunc order. Plaintiff dismissed the estate on its merits, not some procedural flaw. And make no mistake that it was Plaintiff that chose that course and cited her desire not to pursue this matter. There was no clerical error for the Probate Court to correct. The Probate Court’s dismissal was, in truth, what Plaintiff requested. The Probate Court’s order was not in error and the Court did not actually do something else that needed to be reflected in a nunc pro tunc order.