Preview
~ ffgidtacmnn
Dov FILED
ESTIC ATIONS Courr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
MICHAEL KNISLEY :
4981 Chasham Dr.
Huber Heights, OH 45424
DOB: 09/22/77 : Case No. 11 DR 385
Plaintiff, : Judge Denise L. Cross
vs. : MEMORANDUM CONTRA
: PLAINITFF MICHAEL KNISLEY’S
MELODIE KNISLEY : MOTION FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF
4981 Chesham Dr. : THE MARITAL RESIDENCE
Huber Heights, OH 45424
DOB: 03/05/81
Defendant.
Now comes the Defendant, Melodie Knisley (“Defendant”), by and through her attorney,
and respectfully files this Memorandum Contra Plaintiff's Motion for Exclusive Use of the
Marital Residence. A Memorandum is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
LAN ¢
David D. Brannon (0079755)
130 West Second St. - Suite 900
Dayton, OH 45402-1590
Telephone: (937) 228-2306
Facsimile: (937) 228-8475
E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant
BRANNON
wassociates ° 130 West Second Street Suite 900 * Dayton, Ohio 45402-1590MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Michael Knisley (“Michael) filed a Motion for Exclusive Use of the Marital
Residence on May 27, 2011. It was ex parte. /d. The affidavit of Mr. Knisley stating that
Defendant abandoned the premises is not accurate, and this Record should be corrected to protect
Defendant (“Melodie”).
On April 6, 2011, Defendant (Melodie) filed a verified complaint in the Municipal Court
of Montgomery County, Ohio, against Defendants Shawn Knisley, Sarah Knisley, and her
husband, Michael Knisley. Pl.’s Compl. generally, attached. In essence, Defendants Shawn
Knisley and Sarah Knisley are landlords of Melodie and her husband, Michael. Pl.’s Compl.,
ql. On March 5, 2011, Michael vacated the premises at 4981 Chasam Dr., abandoning his wife
and two minor children. /d., {{]12-13. Melodie remained at the residence to care for her
children. /d. The landlord, Shawn Knisley, served a three-day notice to vacate on or about
March 30, 2011. /d., $14. On April 1, 2011, Michael Knisley filed for divorce against Melodie
in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 11DR385. On or about April 5, 2011,
the locks were changed at the residence and Melodie was constructively evicted. Jd., 918.’ Since
that time, husband Michael Knisley (brother to the landlord), has returned to the residence. To
date, Melodie has lost all of her belongings of value. /d., 23.
It is evident that Plaintiff was removed from her home, by the landlord and husband
working in collusion, to take all of Melodie’s possessions of value. There was no abandonment,
and clearly the record should reflect that Melodie was removed from the home. The undersigned
is addressing that issue in Municipal Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Eastern Division (ie
Huber Heights). Upon information and belief, this motion was filed only to serve as the strategyin both cases of creating a collateral estoppel or res judicata argument, precluding Meolodie from
recovering for the wrong against her. This Court should note that the reason why action was
taken in Municipal Court rather than DR Court was because of the other parties involved (ie
landlords). Micahel’s Motion should not only be DENIED, but the record should reflect such
malice from Michael against Melodie.
Respectfully submitted,
BRANNON & ASSOCIATES
DAD ——
David D, Brannon (0079755)
130 West Second St. - Suite 900
Dayton, OH 45402-1590
Telephone: (937) 228-2306
Facsimile: (937) 228-8475
E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon
the following via regular U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, this 6"" day of June, 2011:
Eric A. Stamps, Esq.
3814 Little York Rd.
Dayton, OH 45414
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Michael Knisley
De P———_.
David D, Brannon (0079755)
‘ Michal Knisley admits he changed the locks. See affidavit attached to his Ex Parte Motion filed May 27, 2011.FILED
MUNICIPAL
EASTERN oIviSiON
ZL APR-6 PM 2:40
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO, EASTERN
DIVISION
CIVIL DIVISION
*
MELODIE KNISLEY Case No. QONCVF 00US4
4981 Chesham Dr. *
Huber Heights, OH 45424 JUDGE
*
Plaintiff, * VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
vs. *
*
SHAWN KNISLEY
1503 Beach Dr. *
Medway, OH 45341
*
And
*
SARAH KNISLEY
1503 Beach Dr. *
Medway, OH 45341
*
And
*
MICHAEL KNISLEY
1503 Beach Dr. *
Medway, OH 45341
Defendants.
COMPLAINT1. Plaintiff is a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio.
2. Defendant Shawn Knisley is a resident of Clark County, Ohio, doing business as a
landlord in Montgomery County, Ohio.
3. Defendant Sarah Knisley is a resident of Clark County, Ohio, doing business as a
landtord in Montgomery, County, Ohio.
4, Defendant Michael Knisley was a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio, and is
the husband of Plaintiff.
5. Jurisdiction for all issues raised in this Complaint is properly in Montgomery
County, Ohio because all events related to this matter occurred in Montgomery County, Ohio,
and the business (property) is located in Montgomery County, Ohio.
6. Pursuant to Civ. R. 19, Plaintiff is unaware of the names of any other necessary
party to this action and, therefore, are unable to join such parties. Should it be required, Plaintiff
will conduct discovery pursuant to Civ. R. 37(D) and R.C. 2317.48 in order to ascertain the
identify of any such potentially adverse parties and to ascertain any other causes of action to
which they may be entitled against the named parties.
COUNT I
(VIOLATION OF R.C. 5321.15)
7. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Amended Answer and as if
fully rewritten herein.
8. Plaintiff Melodie Knisley (“Plaintiff”) lived and resided at 4981 Chesham Dr.
Daytonk, OH 45424 as a month-to-month tenant.
9. Plaintiff resided at 4981 Chesham Dr. with her two children and husband
(Michael Knisley), until March 5, 2011.
10. Michael Knisley is brothers with Defendant Shawn Knisley.11. Plaintiff and her husband, Shawn Knisley paid rent to Defendants.
12. On March 5, 2011, indeed Plaintiff's birthday, husband Michael Knisley left the
4981 premises and abandoned his family.
13. Plaintiff remained at the 4981 caring for her two children, while her husband
contemplated divorce and ultimately filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County, Ohio.
14. The landlord, Shawn Knisley, served a three day notice to vacate premises (4981
Chesham) on or about March 30, 2011.
15. A few days later, Plaintiff left the 4981 premises to care for her sick mother,
which was Saturday April 2, 2011.
16. Plaintiff's property, al! of her property, including the children’s property remained
at the 4981 premises.
17. Plaintiff had every intention of returning to the 4981 property to remain there, and
indeed expected to be able to acquire her property once she returned from caring for her mother.
18. On or about April 5, 2011, Plaintiff returned to the 4981 property and found that
the locks had been changed.
19. Plaintiff has nowhere to go, no property, and indeed was never served an eviction
action.
20. To Plaintiff's knowledge, the monthly rent has been paid up through April, as her
husband paid in advance using the tax refund to pay same.
21. At the time Plaintiff caused the locks to be changed, all of Plaintiff's possessions
were located inside the premises; Plaintiff had not been given notice of a legal move-out date,
nor was Plaintiff under a legal obligation to vacate,
22. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her residence and possessions.
323. Plaintiff later learned that all of her possessions had been removed from the
premises.
24. Jn excluding Defendant from the premises without an active Writ of Restitution,
and in disposing of Defendant’s possessions, Defendant has violated R.C. 5321.15.
25. Defendant is entitled to damages and attorney’s fees for Plaintiff's violation of
RC, 5321.15.
COUNT IL
(CONVERSION)
26. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
rewritten herein.
27. On or about April 5, 2011, without a Writ of Restitution, the defendants caused
the locks on the doors of the premises to be changed, thus denying Plaintiff entrance into the
premises.
28. At the time the locks were changed, all of Plaintiff's possessions were located
inside the premises, as Plaintiff had not been given notice of a move-out date, upon which date a
Writ of Restitution would become effective.
29. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her possessions.
30. Plaintiff later learned that all of her possessions had been removed from the
premises.
31. Defendants’ conduct in unlawfully excluding Defendant from the rental premises
and unlawfully removing and disposing of Plaintiff's property, was characterized by hatred, ill
will or a spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other
persons that had a great probability of causing substantial harm.32. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for PlaintifPs
conversion of her possessions.
COUNT IT
(TRESPASS TO CHATTELS)
33. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
rewritten herein.
34, On or about April 5, 2011, without a Writ of Restitution, the Defendants caused
the locks on the doors of the premises to be changed, thus denying Plaintiff entrance into the
premises.
35. At the time the locks were changed, all of Plaintiffs possessions were located.
inside the premises, as Plaintiff had not been given notice of a move-out date, upon which date a
Writ of Restitution would become effective.
36. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her possessions.
37. Defendant’s conduct in unlawfully excluding Defendant from the rental premises
and unlawfully removing and disposing of Plaintiff's property, was characterized by hatred, ill
will or a spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other
persons that had a great probability of causing substantial harm.
38. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Defendant’s
disposal and/or destruction of her possessions.
COUNT IV
CNTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
39. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
rewritten herein.
40. Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly acted in an extreme and outrageous
manner so as to cause serious emotional distress to Defendant.
541. Plaintiff's conduct as pleaded herein was so outrageous in character that it went
beyond all possible bounds of decency and may be regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
42. Defendants’ actions proximately caused Plaintiff's psychic injuries.
43. Plaintiff's mental anguish was so serious and of such a nature that no reasonable
person could be expected to endure it.
44, — Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Defendant’s
conduct.
COUNT V
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTIO! F EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
45, Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
rewritten herein.
46. Defendants were negligent.
47. Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress.
48. The serious emotional distress was the result of negligence of the Defendants’
conduct.
49. The serious emotional distress of Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable by the
Defendant at the time of the negligence.
50. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Plaintiffs conduct.COUNT VI
(CONSPIRACY)
51. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
rewritten herein.
52. Defendants’ actions formed a malicious combination, of two or more persons,
resulting in injury to Plaintiff's property interests, which consisted of unlawful acts independent
of the actual conspiracy.
53. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has been damaged.
CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
54. Plaintiff reincorporates al] previous paragraphs of Complaint as if fully rewritten
herein.
55. The Defendants authorized, participated in, and/or ratified acts or the failure to act
that demonstrate malice, aggravated or egregious fraud, oppression, or insult.
56. Defendants’ conduct as pleaded herein was characterized by hatred, ill will or a
spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that
had a great probability of causing substantial harm.
57. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages for Defendants’ conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having pleaded various claims and damages, Plaintiff hereby demands:
1. that Plaintiff be awarded her costs and attorney fees;
2. that Plaintiff be awarded pre and post judgment interest regarding all sums;
3. that Plaintiff be awarded compensatory and punitive damages up to the
jurisdictional limit of $15,000; and4. Plaintiff be awarded any and all other relief to which she is entitled at law or in
equity.
Respectfully submitted,
LED) /——
David D. Brannon (0079755)
BRANNON & ASSOCIATES
130 West Second Street, Suite 900
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Telephone: (937) 228-2306
Facsimile: (937) 228-8475
E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.comeae
STATEOFOHIO. )
) SS:
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY )
Now comes Melodie Knisley, while she is dependent upon her attorney for the research
and pleading of this Complaint and is not qualified to comment as to the form and legal
conclusions she is aware of the facts alleged in the Complaint and does hereby swear that those
pleadings, of which she has personal knowledge, are true to the best of her belief and that those
averred were reasonably ascertained by her. As tot ch factual allegations, all are based upon
Affiant’s reasonable investigation and assistance of her counsel.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
Leolechex Kaibbrog
Melodie Knisley q
Swom to before me, a Notary Public, and subscribed in my presence this Chay of
April, 2011.
‘ate
“Notary Public
Wt od
Preview
~ ffgidtacmnn Dov FILED ESTIC ATIONS Courr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS MICHAEL KNISLEY : 4981 Chasham Dr. Huber Heights, OH 45424 DOB: 09/22/77 : Case No. 11 DR 385 Plaintiff, : Judge Denise L. Cross vs. : MEMORANDUM CONTRA : PLAINITFF MICHAEL KNISLEY’S MELODIE KNISLEY : MOTION FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF 4981 Chesham Dr. : THE MARITAL RESIDENCE Huber Heights, OH 45424 DOB: 03/05/81 Defendant. Now comes the Defendant, Melodie Knisley (“Defendant”), by and through her attorney, and respectfully files this Memorandum Contra Plaintiff's Motion for Exclusive Use of the Marital Residence. A Memorandum is attached. Respectfully submitted, LAN ¢ David D. Brannon (0079755) 130 West Second St. - Suite 900 Dayton, OH 45402-1590 Telephone: (937) 228-2306 Facsimile: (937) 228-8475 E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.com Counsel for Defendant BRANNON wassociates ° 130 West Second Street Suite 900 * Dayton, Ohio 45402-1590MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Michael Knisley (“Michael) filed a Motion for Exclusive Use of the Marital Residence on May 27, 2011. It was ex parte. /d. The affidavit of Mr. Knisley stating that Defendant abandoned the premises is not accurate, and this Record should be corrected to protect Defendant (“Melodie”). On April 6, 2011, Defendant (Melodie) filed a verified complaint in the Municipal Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, against Defendants Shawn Knisley, Sarah Knisley, and her husband, Michael Knisley. Pl.’s Compl. generally, attached. In essence, Defendants Shawn Knisley and Sarah Knisley are landlords of Melodie and her husband, Michael. Pl.’s Compl., ql. On March 5, 2011, Michael vacated the premises at 4981 Chasam Dr., abandoning his wife and two minor children. /d., {{]12-13. Melodie remained at the residence to care for her children. /d. The landlord, Shawn Knisley, served a three-day notice to vacate on or about March 30, 2011. /d., $14. On April 1, 2011, Michael Knisley filed for divorce against Melodie in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 11DR385. On or about April 5, 2011, the locks were changed at the residence and Melodie was constructively evicted. Jd., 918.’ Since that time, husband Michael Knisley (brother to the landlord), has returned to the residence. To date, Melodie has lost all of her belongings of value. /d., 23. It is evident that Plaintiff was removed from her home, by the landlord and husband working in collusion, to take all of Melodie’s possessions of value. There was no abandonment, and clearly the record should reflect that Melodie was removed from the home. The undersigned is addressing that issue in Municipal Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Eastern Division (ie Huber Heights). Upon information and belief, this motion was filed only to serve as the strategyin both cases of creating a collateral estoppel or res judicata argument, precluding Meolodie from recovering for the wrong against her. This Court should note that the reason why action was taken in Municipal Court rather than DR Court was because of the other parties involved (ie landlords). Micahel’s Motion should not only be DENIED, but the record should reflect such malice from Michael against Melodie. Respectfully submitted, BRANNON & ASSOCIATES DAD —— David D, Brannon (0079755) 130 West Second St. - Suite 900 Dayton, OH 45402-1590 Telephone: (937) 228-2306 Facsimile: (937) 228-8475 E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.com Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following via regular U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, this 6"" day of June, 2011: Eric A. Stamps, Esq. 3814 Little York Rd. Dayton, OH 45414 Attorney for Plaintiff: Michael Knisley De P———_. David D, Brannon (0079755) ‘ Michal Knisley admits he changed the locks. See affidavit attached to his Ex Parte Motion filed May 27, 2011.FILED MUNICIPAL EASTERN oIviSiON ZL APR-6 PM 2:40 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION CIVIL DIVISION * MELODIE KNISLEY Case No. QONCVF 00US4 4981 Chesham Dr. * Huber Heights, OH 45424 JUDGE * Plaintiff, * VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. * * SHAWN KNISLEY 1503 Beach Dr. * Medway, OH 45341 * And * SARAH KNISLEY 1503 Beach Dr. * Medway, OH 45341 * And * MICHAEL KNISLEY 1503 Beach Dr. * Medway, OH 45341 Defendants. COMPLAINT1. Plaintiff is a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio. 2. Defendant Shawn Knisley is a resident of Clark County, Ohio, doing business as a landlord in Montgomery County, Ohio. 3. Defendant Sarah Knisley is a resident of Clark County, Ohio, doing business as a landtord in Montgomery, County, Ohio. 4, Defendant Michael Knisley was a resident of Montgomery County, Ohio, and is the husband of Plaintiff. 5. Jurisdiction for all issues raised in this Complaint is properly in Montgomery County, Ohio because all events related to this matter occurred in Montgomery County, Ohio, and the business (property) is located in Montgomery County, Ohio. 6. Pursuant to Civ. R. 19, Plaintiff is unaware of the names of any other necessary party to this action and, therefore, are unable to join such parties. Should it be required, Plaintiff will conduct discovery pursuant to Civ. R. 37(D) and R.C. 2317.48 in order to ascertain the identify of any such potentially adverse parties and to ascertain any other causes of action to which they may be entitled against the named parties. COUNT I (VIOLATION OF R.C. 5321.15) 7. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Amended Answer and as if fully rewritten herein. 8. Plaintiff Melodie Knisley (“Plaintiff”) lived and resided at 4981 Chesham Dr. Daytonk, OH 45424 as a month-to-month tenant. 9. Plaintiff resided at 4981 Chesham Dr. with her two children and husband (Michael Knisley), until March 5, 2011. 10. Michael Knisley is brothers with Defendant Shawn Knisley.11. Plaintiff and her husband, Shawn Knisley paid rent to Defendants. 12. On March 5, 2011, indeed Plaintiff's birthday, husband Michael Knisley left the 4981 premises and abandoned his family. 13. Plaintiff remained at the 4981 caring for her two children, while her husband contemplated divorce and ultimately filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio. 14. The landlord, Shawn Knisley, served a three day notice to vacate premises (4981 Chesham) on or about March 30, 2011. 15. A few days later, Plaintiff left the 4981 premises to care for her sick mother, which was Saturday April 2, 2011. 16. Plaintiff's property, al! of her property, including the children’s property remained at the 4981 premises. 17. Plaintiff had every intention of returning to the 4981 property to remain there, and indeed expected to be able to acquire her property once she returned from caring for her mother. 18. On or about April 5, 2011, Plaintiff returned to the 4981 property and found that the locks had been changed. 19. Plaintiff has nowhere to go, no property, and indeed was never served an eviction action. 20. To Plaintiff's knowledge, the monthly rent has been paid up through April, as her husband paid in advance using the tax refund to pay same. 21. At the time Plaintiff caused the locks to be changed, all of Plaintiff's possessions were located inside the premises; Plaintiff had not been given notice of a legal move-out date, nor was Plaintiff under a legal obligation to vacate, 22. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her residence and possessions. 323. Plaintiff later learned that all of her possessions had been removed from the premises. 24. Jn excluding Defendant from the premises without an active Writ of Restitution, and in disposing of Defendant’s possessions, Defendant has violated R.C. 5321.15. 25. Defendant is entitled to damages and attorney’s fees for Plaintiff's violation of RC, 5321.15. COUNT IL (CONVERSION) 26. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 27. On or about April 5, 2011, without a Writ of Restitution, the defendants caused the locks on the doors of the premises to be changed, thus denying Plaintiff entrance into the premises. 28. At the time the locks were changed, all of Plaintiff's possessions were located inside the premises, as Plaintiff had not been given notice of a move-out date, upon which date a Writ of Restitution would become effective. 29. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her possessions. 30. Plaintiff later learned that all of her possessions had been removed from the premises. 31. Defendants’ conduct in unlawfully excluding Defendant from the rental premises and unlawfully removing and disposing of Plaintiff's property, was characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that had a great probability of causing substantial harm.32. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for PlaintifPs conversion of her possessions. COUNT IT (TRESPASS TO CHATTELS) 33. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 34, On or about April 5, 2011, without a Writ of Restitution, the Defendants caused the locks on the doors of the premises to be changed, thus denying Plaintiff entrance into the premises. 35. At the time the locks were changed, all of Plaintiffs possessions were located. inside the premises, as Plaintiff had not been given notice of a move-out date, upon which date a Writ of Restitution would become effective. 36. Plaintiff was thus denied access to her possessions. 37. Defendant’s conduct in unlawfully excluding Defendant from the rental premises and unlawfully removing and disposing of Plaintiff's property, was characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that had a great probability of causing substantial harm. 38. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Defendant’s disposal and/or destruction of her possessions. COUNT IV CNTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 39. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 40. Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly acted in an extreme and outrageous manner so as to cause serious emotional distress to Defendant. 541. Plaintiff's conduct as pleaded herein was so outrageous in character that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and may be regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 42. Defendants’ actions proximately caused Plaintiff's psychic injuries. 43. Plaintiff's mental anguish was so serious and of such a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 44, — Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Defendant’s conduct. COUNT V (NEGLIGENT INFLICTIO! F EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 45, Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 46. Defendants were negligent. 47. Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress. 48. The serious emotional distress was the result of negligence of the Defendants’ conduct. 49. The serious emotional distress of Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant at the time of the negligence. 50. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for Plaintiffs conduct.COUNT VI (CONSPIRACY) 51. Plaintiff reincorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 52. Defendants’ actions formed a malicious combination, of two or more persons, resulting in injury to Plaintiff's property interests, which consisted of unlawful acts independent of the actual conspiracy. 53. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has been damaged. CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 54. Plaintiff reincorporates al] previous paragraphs of Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 55. The Defendants authorized, participated in, and/or ratified acts or the failure to act that demonstrate malice, aggravated or egregious fraud, oppression, or insult. 56. Defendants’ conduct as pleaded herein was characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, and/or by a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that had a great probability of causing substantial harm. 57. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages for Defendants’ conduct. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having pleaded various claims and damages, Plaintiff hereby demands: 1. that Plaintiff be awarded her costs and attorney fees; 2. that Plaintiff be awarded pre and post judgment interest regarding all sums; 3. that Plaintiff be awarded compensatory and punitive damages up to the jurisdictional limit of $15,000; and4. Plaintiff be awarded any and all other relief to which she is entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, LED) /—— David D. Brannon (0079755) BRANNON & ASSOCIATES 130 West Second Street, Suite 900 Dayton, Ohio 45402 Telephone: (937) 228-2306 Facsimile: (937) 228-8475 E-Mail: davidbrannon@branlaw.comeae STATEOFOHIO. ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) Now comes Melodie Knisley, while she is dependent upon her attorney for the research and pleading of this Complaint and is not qualified to comment as to the form and legal conclusions she is aware of the facts alleged in the Complaint and does hereby swear that those pleadings, of which she has personal knowledge, are true to the best of her belief and that those averred were reasonably ascertained by her. As tot ch factual allegations, all are based upon Affiant’s reasonable investigation and assistance of her counsel. Further affiant sayeth naught. Leolechex Kaibbrog Melodie Knisley q Swom to before me, a Notary Public, and subscribed in my presence this Chay of April, 2011. ‘ate “Notary Public Wt od