court did not err when it granted his motion for summary judgment. Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled. Ill {¶ 23} In his second and final assignment of error, appellant argues that “the trial court erred when it denied plaintiff-appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment.” In this motion, appellant requested that the court grant summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability only, concerning the trustee’s alleged negligence in delegating trust investment duties and acting without the cotrustee. In short, appellant’s summary judgment motion covers the same issues as his arguments under review in this appeal. In light of the extensive analysis regarding the first assignment of error, we conclude that the same analysis can 96, 2005-Ohio-6484, 2005 WL 3315034 (<HOLDING>). 4 . The elements of negligence are (1)
holding that the specific terms of a trust may abrogate the statutory duty to diversify holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause holding that the terms of the trust deed foreclosure statutes must be strictly complied with holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment