Court critical of Dann in case

By David Skolnick

The magistrate wrote Marc Dann improperly used his court ‘to advance a political agenda.’

YOUNGSTOWN — Despite the scandal at the attorney general’s office and calls for his resignation, Marc Dann has repeatedly said no one’s questioned the quality of service his office provides.

But that’s not the case.

Magistrate Michael L. Bachman of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court strongly criticized the actions of Dann, who personally argued in front of him a civil matter involving a foreclosure.

“This court must conclude that the attorney general was using this court to advance a political agenda rather than seek a legal remedy in a court of law,” the magistrate wrote in a Feb. 4 decision.

Bachman didn’t stop there.

The magistrate said Dann’s intervention in the housing foreclosure case was a conflict of interest under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.

“This court has significant concerns regarding the ethical implications of the attorney general moving to dismiss an action,” he wrote in the decision that went against the woman who lost her house to foreclosure and Dann, a Liberty Democrat.

Democratic and Republican state officials are calling on Dann to resign as attorney general. A report on sexual harassment complaints, released May 2, harshly criticized Dann and the office for failing to properly oversee management employees, cronyism and a list of judgment errors by Dann and senior staffers.

Dann also admitted to an extramarital affair with his scheduler that, he said, helped contribute to poor behavior by others in the office.

Dann fired two top administrators, including one who the report stated sexually harassed two subordinates. Also, Jessica Utovich, his scheduler, and Edgar Simpson, chief of policy and administration, resigned.

Despite the controversy, Dann said shortly after the report’s May 2 release that “there is nobody who’s raised a single concern about the delivery of services” of his office.

Later that day, he told The Vindicator: “I don’t think anybody here has challenged our success in law enforcement or as lawyers or as environmental protectors. Nobody has challenged that and nobody in the state has challenged that, by the way. The work product has remained outstanding.”

Ted Hart, an attorney general spokesman, said categorizing the magistrate’s statements as refuting Dann’s assertion that no one has challenged the office’s success as “a little bit of a stretch. You found one legal case in which we were battling for a homeowner. ... The overwhelming evidence is the body of work has been excellent.”

The Hamilton County case pitted Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. against Telisa Barnes. The bank said the Cincinnati woman failed to pay her mortgage, and the bank foreclosed on her house.

Dann personally intervened, filing a motion to dismiss.

Dann contended because the bank couldn’t provide documentation that it owned the defaulted mortgage, it couldn’t foreclose on it. Bachman rejected the argument, adding that Dann was only postponing the inevitable.

The magistrate also wrote in his decision that Dann had a conflict of interest.

The state had an interest in the property because Barnes used it as part of a $20,000 bond in an aggravated-menacing case, according to a Feb. 5 article in The Enquirer, a Cincinnati daily newspaper.

“On its face, the attorney general’s motion seeking to dismiss the foreclosure action conflicts with his duty to the taxpayers and citizens of the state of Ohio to collect on judgments rendered in the state’s favor,” Bachman wrote.

Dann told the magistrate that no conflict existed because he concluded the state is more likely to collect the money owed if Barnes kept the house.

“The court finds the attorney general’s argument utterly baseless and demonstrably meritless,” he wrote.

The magistrate made his decision and criticism of Dann almost two months before two attorney general employees filed sexual harassment complaints on March 31.

Dann filed identical motions on seven other similar cases in Hamilton County in January.

In one case, Household Realty, seeking to foreclose on a house, dismissed its action after the state’s motion.

The state withdrew its motions in four other cases.

What happened in the two other cases hasn’t been disclosed.

The magistrate wrote that Dann admitted the motions were filed to “raise a public policy issue.” But, Bachman wrote, that shouldn’t be done in his court.

The magistrate told Dann to take up the issue with the General Assembly or the Ohio Supreme Court.

skolnick@vindy.com