Moore

An intermediate court lacks authority to disqualify a trial judge or to void a judgment based on a claimed conflict of interest (here involving a judicial law clerk who had been counsel for one of the parties). The divorce decree here sufficiently allocated the relevant property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in establishing a de facto termination date for the marriage, but should have used the same date consistently. The trial court's allocation of a salary bonus earned over time that extended beyond the marriage was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court also did not err in refusing to allocate as the wife's separate property money that had been placed into a custodial account for the benefit of the couple's minor child. The trial court did not err in concluding that statutory formula required a child support award of $37,710 per month for the young girl. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in partcause remanded.

Pro se litigants are not to be accorded greater rights and must accept the results of their own mistakes and errors, including those related to correct legal procedure. In this case, the public officials and employees are entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744 as they were performing governmental actions and none of the exceptions to immunity apply. Furthermore, though appellant's neighbors are not entitled to governmental immunity, they're not liable under any cognizable claim raised by appellant.