Ohio Civ.rule 12 (E) does anyone comprehend this?

[free*to*be*me]

O.K. anyone out there, here is an Ohio Civil rules of procedure 12 (E) can anyone comprehend what this means, I don't mean to sound like an idiot but what does everyone else comprehend from this rule? The judge wrote this, Civ.- E-12 below his signature on a Judgement for foreclosure.


(E) Motion for definite statement. If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a
responsive pleading, he may move for a definite statement before interposing his responsive
pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the
motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within fourteen days after notice of the
order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which
the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.

[mrg]

To me it means that as a land and a people we are more than likely in very deep $#!^.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlK62rjQWLk

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by free*to*be*me

O.K. anyone out there, here is an Ohio Civil rules of procedure 12 (E) can anyone comprehend what this means, I don't mean to sound like an idiot but what does everyone else comprehend from this rule? The judge wrote this, Civ. 12 (E) below his signature on a Judgement for foreclosure.


(E) Motion for definite statement. If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a
responsive pleading, he may move for a definite statement before interposing his responsive
pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the
motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within fourteen days after notice of the
order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which
the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.

Quit babbling and accurately say what you really mean so the other guy knows what the Heck, you are saying.

[Shoonra]

You don't bother to tell us what happened before this summary judgment -- what pleadings and submissions went back and forth, etc. And you don't say if you were involved.

With nothing more than what you have provided, I have to guess that the person opposing foreclosure submitted a pleading that was "vague or ambiguous" (or, if it's like some of the stuff I've seen, completely off the wall), and was given a chance to rewrite his pleadings and didn't do so or at least didn't take the hint and write stuff that made sense. The judge is citing the rule to indicate why he issued a summary judgment rather than let the case go on to trial.

[free*to*be*me]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Quit babbling and accurately say what you really mean so the other guy knows what the Heck, you are saying.

It is a simple question, if theres any babbling going on blame the rule maker not I, because they are the ones who wrote this rule.

[free*to*be*me]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You don't bother to tell us what happened before this summary judgment -- what pleadings and submissions went back and forth, etc. And you don't say if you were involved.

With nothing more than what you have provided, I have to guess that the person opposing foreclosure submitted a pleading that was "vague or ambiguous" (or, if it's like some of the stuff I've seen, completely off the wall), and was given a chance to rewrite his pleadings and didn't do so or at least didn't take the hint and write stuff that made sense. The judge is citing the rule to indicate why he issued a summary judgment rather than let the case go on to trial.

now now shoonra don't add things that aren't there, I never mentioned " summary judgement" did I? Does it really matter who the parties involved are? It was a simple question for but only a simple answer would have been suffitiant.

So what you are suggesting is here is a judge that doesn't completely understand or know their own laws and rules, maybe he should hire an attorney to explain it to him, its not up to me to explain rules to the judge, is that not what they tell us?

You see the response this judge received was very clearly directed to a district court case and would have caused him to go read it, instead he choose to be lazy and make a wrongful judgement, to bad, he put himself in harms way with his autograph.

[Sapiens]

Originally Posted by free*to*be*me

It is a simple question, if theres any babbling going on blame the rule maker not I, because they are the ones who wrote this rule.

Mmm, I think he was posting his interpretation of the rule and not criticizing you.

Without prejudice, this is my interpretation of the rule:

(E) Motion for definite statement.

Tell the other guy so state clearly and with particularity what the heck is he saying.

If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading.

The other guy's papers do not clearly state what the issue is, so with good reason I can't reply to them because they are ambiguous, therefore, I am asking for him to state clearly what the issue is so I may draft my response.

The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired.

In your motion, you gotta tell the other guy that his sentences or statements do not say anything. Also, you must tell him to tell you what specifically you need to know so you may reply to him.

If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within fourteen days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.

If the court agrees with you and the other guy does not obey within 14 days from getting notice, or some other time frame the court deems proper, the court can tell the other guy his papers are not required to be answered or whatever else the court may deem just.

[free*to*be*me]

Thanks everyone, the answers here are what I comprehended also, just wanted to make sure I was right. Never hurts to get other opinions.

Here is another one for Ohioans if your thinking about not giving them jurisdiction. Civil rules of procedure. Rule 12 (3)

(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks
jurisdiction on the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.
[Effective: July 1, 1970; amended effective July 1, 1983.]

[Libertarian]

Here is another one for Ohioans if your thinking about not giving them jurisdiction. Civil rules of procedure. Rule 12 (3)

(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks
jurisdiction on the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.

Actually, what that says is that you can't "give them jurisdiction." Either the court has jurisdiction or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, the court must dismiss whether or not the parties ask it to.

[free*to*be*me]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Actually, what that says is that you can't "give them jurisdiction." Either the court has jurisdiction or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, the court must dismiss whether or not the parties ask it to.

Would you care to explain your answer? It plainly says..
*Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise.* what I understand here is the parties must somehow tell the court by suggestion or otherwise they don't have jurisdiction. Then the court must dismiss the action.

Anyone else have a comment?