Opinion
Appellate Case No. 28869
04-16-2021
TRAVIS LANIER WILLIAMS Plaintiff-Appellant v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAID Defendant-Appellee
TRAVIS LANIER WILLIAMS, 1955 Kipling Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45406 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se ANGELA M. SULLIVAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0075070, 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
Trial Court Case No. 2020-CV-2381 (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
OPINION
TRAVIS LANIER WILLIAMS, 1955 Kipling Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45406 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se ANGELA M. SULLIVAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0075070, 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee TUCKER, P.J.
{¶ 1} Travis Lanier Williams appeals pro se as the Trustee of the Travis Lanier Williams Revocable Living Trust Agreement (the Trust). Since Williams is not an attorney, he cannot represent the trust. Given this, the notice of appeal is a legal nullity, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Williams's complaint, though rather difficult to comprehend, asserted that a self-created $10,000 "Bill of Exchange," made on behalf of the Trust and drawn on the United States Department of Treasury, should have been accepted by the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) to pay-off a lien ODM had placed on real property that had been owned by Williams's deceased great-grandmother. The complaint named as defendants ODM and collection attorneys Charles Geidner and Brent Rambo. The trial court first dismissed Geidner and Rambo; these dismissals are not at issue in this appeal. Thereafter, ODM filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted ODM's motion. This appeal followed.
Though the existence and legal status of the Trust is unclear, given the posture of the case, we must assume the Trust exists in appropriate legal form. --------
Analysis
{¶ 3} In this appeal, Williams continues to assert that the $10,000 "Bill of Exchange" should have been accepted by ODM in satisfaction of the lien. Upon review of the complaint, the appellate briefs, and the trial court's decision, we conclude that the "Bill of Exchange" was of no legal effect. Thus, the trial court did not err by granting ODM's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.
{¶ 4} But more importantly, Williams's notice of appeal was ineffective to institute an appeal in this matter. Williams is not a licensed attorney, and he may not represent the interests of the Trust by filing documents in court, including a notice of appeal. See Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ross, 154 Ohio St. 3d 328, 2018-Ohio-4247, 114 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 1 (approving a consent decree recognizing that "[n]on-attorneys, including trustees, cannot engage in legal representation of trusts"); Bank of New York v. Miller, 185 Ohio App.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6117, 923 N.E.2d 651, ¶ 10 (5th Dist.) ("A trustee of a trust, who is not a licensed and registered attorney at law, may not file pleadings, argue, or otherwise represent the trust as its counsel in a court."). Any filing by a non-attorney on behalf of another person or entity is a nullity. Cannabis for Cures, L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-12, 2018-Ohio-3193, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Handcock, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-3, 2016-Ohio-7096, ¶ 11.
{¶ 5} Based upon this authority, Williams's notice of appeal was a nullity and, thus, ineffective to initiate the present appeal.
Conclusion
{¶ 6} The appeal in this case is dismissed. HALL, J. and EPLEY, J., concur. Copies sent to: Travis Lanier Williams
Angela M. Sullivan
Hon. Michael W. Krumholtz