SOULRUSH!
< Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
< Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
__________________________________________________________________________________
new! Simone Unplugged: The Karmelo Anthony Case
_________________________________________________________________________
new! Simone Unplugged: The Karmelo Anthony Case
_________________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC
note: Our weekly HBCU feature will return on August 24. Until then, we'll look at misconduct in and by the Courts
gosepl___________________________________________________________________________________________ts.
gosepl___________________________________________________________________________________________ts.
with simone beverly
On or about July 1, 2024, a surviving spouse tendered an Application for Certificate of Transfer to the Cuyahoga County Probate Court for filing. Upon review, the Clerk deemed the application incomplete and refused to file it, because it did not include a real estate appraisal. For the record, however, there was no deficiency, as the Court has processed numerous such applications that did not include a real estate appraisal. In fact, no applications that our team reviewed ( ie. approximately fifty, going back to 2013) included a real estate appraisal, so this may have been a stall tactic designed to delay the processing of the application. Nevertheless, the 'deficiency' was corrected, and the application was again tendered and ultimately accepted for filing. This time, however, the Court set the application for Hearing, some six weeks out from the date of filing, despite that such applications are never set for Hearing, and are instead, Granted within 24 - 72 hours from the date of filing -- absent a Hearing. So what happened this time?
Well, hold onto ur hat !!! Heres what happened:
Well, hold onto ur hat !!! Heres what happened:
___________________________________________________________________________________
The Hearing was held as scheduled.. some six weeks after the application was filed. The surviving spouse , however, did not attend the Hearing, but someone did, because the Court denied the application on the basis of statements that, to this day, have been attributed to no one. That is, based on the Order that denied the application, someone called the Court, or otherwise appeared at the Hearing, and made any number of statements , such as, 'she didn't sign that," 'she's in a nursing home," etc and so forth. Based on these statements, the Court denied the application. But who made the statements? The nursing home? Its attorney? The State? Or perhaps it was the Decedents side chick who's tryna get a piece of the pie or otherwise call the shots. One things for sure, unless such person or persons testifed under oath, and on the record, such statements can not be used to influence the Courts decision. That said, even if someone testified under oath and on the record, such persons lacked standing to interfere with a legitimate Application for Certificate of Transfer that had been filed by Decedents Surviving Spouse. Still, the Court denied the application on the basis of statements made by a person or persons who have yet to be identified. In response to the denial however, a Motion to Vacate was filed by the surviving spouse, which the Court denied as moot, since it claimed it had already vacated the denial on its own motion , and rescheduled the application for Hearing, again, six weeks out.
On the day of the new Hearing, the applicant/surviving spouse, again, did not appear. This time, because the nursing home would not allow her to leave the facility for the Hearing. Because the applicant/surviving spouse did not appear at the rescheduled Hearing, the Court entered no decision on the application, and to date, has still entered no decision on the application. Again tho, a legitimate Application for Certificate of Transfer filed by a surviving spouse is never set for Hearing, but, instead, is Granted within 24 - 72 hours, without a Hearing.
All of that being said, because of the Courts failure to timely or otherwise Grant the Application for Certificate of Transfer, the surviving spouse was unable to rework the mortgage agreement that was in Decedents name, thus the house in question and its contents was lost to a fraudulent foreclosure action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which was discussed here last week. But, to recap last weeks post: when the mortgage foreclosure Complaint was filed , the statute of limitations had expired, pursuant to ORC 2117.06, which required the Complaint (1) to be filed within six months of the Decedents death (2) in the Probate Court, and (3) with the Administrator of the Estate as the defendant. None of those requirements were met, and the Common Pleas Judge, Magistrate and Administrative Judge were all advised of this glaringly obvious fact, yet , the Common Pleas Court allowed the action to proceed despite that it was filed in violation of ORC 2117.06. In addition, the Court ultimately entered a default Judgment, despite that an Answer had been filed.
At the end of the day, and altho there are many issues to cite with regard to both proceedings ( ie. the Foreclosure Complaint, and the Application for Certificate of Transfer), such issues are too vast to fully discuss on this platform. Nevertheless, one question begs to be asked:
Did the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas , the Cuyahoga County Probate Court, select attorneys, real estate moguls and 'others,' work in tandem to rob the surviving spouse of her gently lived in , newly remodeled home, located on a quiet street in the suburbs?
You bet your sweet bippy they did !!!
Allegedly...
______
Fun Facts
(1) One of the clerks in the Probate Court is a huge real estate guy , and is on a first name basis with the folks in the Cuyahoga County Recorders Office. He typically visits the Recorders Office in mid to late December to file what appears to be hundreds of deeds before the start of the new year. Our team thinks he functions as a mole in the Court ( ie tipping folks off to the fact that various filings have been tendered, so they can act accordingly) (IJS)
(2) The Probate Court had a duty to Grant the Application For Certificate of Transfer within 24 - 72 hours after it was filed. No Hearing was required. Once granted, the survivng spouse would have then had standing to rework the mortgage agreement that Decedent had entered into , and, not only save her home, but return to it.
(3) Being in a nursing home does not preclude an applicant/surviving spouse from owning property. So the Courts denial of the application on that basis, is a violation of the applicants 14th amendment property rights.
(4) Decedents side chick once worked at the nursing home where the surviving spouse "resides." She was an STNA. Our sources say thats how and where she met Decedent. It started with coffee runs to Starbucks, then advanced to borrowing money, getting rides to and from work, doing the nasty .... and etc. Under the circumstances, its only natural that the side chick wants her piece of the pie. Theres just one teensy problem tho, our sources say Decedent had two side chicks... two side chicks and a spouse, and word on the street is: they all lookin for a check (lol).
Ruh Rho, this bouta git messy...
On the day of the new Hearing, the applicant/surviving spouse, again, did not appear. This time, because the nursing home would not allow her to leave the facility for the Hearing. Because the applicant/surviving spouse did not appear at the rescheduled Hearing, the Court entered no decision on the application, and to date, has still entered no decision on the application. Again tho, a legitimate Application for Certificate of Transfer filed by a surviving spouse is never set for Hearing, but, instead, is Granted within 24 - 72 hours, without a Hearing.
All of that being said, because of the Courts failure to timely or otherwise Grant the Application for Certificate of Transfer, the surviving spouse was unable to rework the mortgage agreement that was in Decedents name, thus the house in question and its contents was lost to a fraudulent foreclosure action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which was discussed here last week. But, to recap last weeks post: when the mortgage foreclosure Complaint was filed , the statute of limitations had expired, pursuant to ORC 2117.06, which required the Complaint (1) to be filed within six months of the Decedents death (2) in the Probate Court, and (3) with the Administrator of the Estate as the defendant. None of those requirements were met, and the Common Pleas Judge, Magistrate and Administrative Judge were all advised of this glaringly obvious fact, yet , the Common Pleas Court allowed the action to proceed despite that it was filed in violation of ORC 2117.06. In addition, the Court ultimately entered a default Judgment, despite that an Answer had been filed.
At the end of the day, and altho there are many issues to cite with regard to both proceedings ( ie. the Foreclosure Complaint, and the Application for Certificate of Transfer), such issues are too vast to fully discuss on this platform. Nevertheless, one question begs to be asked:
Did the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas , the Cuyahoga County Probate Court, select attorneys, real estate moguls and 'others,' work in tandem to rob the surviving spouse of her gently lived in , newly remodeled home, located on a quiet street in the suburbs?
You bet your sweet bippy they did !!!
Allegedly...
______
Fun Facts
(1) One of the clerks in the Probate Court is a huge real estate guy , and is on a first name basis with the folks in the Cuyahoga County Recorders Office. He typically visits the Recorders Office in mid to late December to file what appears to be hundreds of deeds before the start of the new year. Our team thinks he functions as a mole in the Court ( ie tipping folks off to the fact that various filings have been tendered, so they can act accordingly) (IJS)
(2) The Probate Court had a duty to Grant the Application For Certificate of Transfer within 24 - 72 hours after it was filed. No Hearing was required. Once granted, the survivng spouse would have then had standing to rework the mortgage agreement that Decedent had entered into , and, not only save her home, but return to it.
(3) Being in a nursing home does not preclude an applicant/surviving spouse from owning property. So the Courts denial of the application on that basis, is a violation of the applicants 14th amendment property rights.
(4) Decedents side chick once worked at the nursing home where the surviving spouse "resides." She was an STNA. Our sources say thats how and where she met Decedent. It started with coffee runs to Starbucks, then advanced to borrowing money, getting rides to and from work, doing the nasty .... and etc. Under the circumstances, its only natural that the side chick wants her piece of the pie. Theres just one teensy problem tho, our sources say Decedent had two side chicks... two side chicks and a spouse, and word on the street is: they all lookin for a check (lol).
Ruh Rho, this bouta git messy...
Here Come de Judge
edited 8:20 p.m. EST
