Paul M. Taylor v. Richard "Dip" Rankin

── Paul M. Taylor v. Richard "Dip" Rankin ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 22, 2026 Author: Combs Category: General RENDERED: MAY 22, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0577-MR PAUL M. TAYLOR APPELLANT APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JERRY CROSBY, II, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-00018 RICHARD “DIP”`` RANKIN AND JUDY RANKIN APPELLEES OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: Paul M. Taylor, a building contractor, appeals, pro se, from a judgment of the Oldham Circuit Court in favor of Richard and Judy Rankin, homeowners, in an action for breach of contract action. Taylor raises numerous issues on appeal. However, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal because of Taylor’s failure to substantially comply with our rules of appellate procedure.  In the summer of 2019, Richard and Judy Rankin entered into a construction contract with Taylor for completion of a minor home improvement project. However, once materials were delivered to the Rankins’ property and construction began, it became clear that the parties could not work together. The project was never completed. In July 2021, Richard Rankin filed a civil action against Taylor in Oldham District Court. Rankin’s complaint alleged breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. Taylor, pro se, filed a response and a counterclaim essentially alleging breach of contract and conversion. Rankin answered the counterclaim. Litigation continued in the district court until Taylor filed a motion to have the matter transferred to circuit court on the basis that he sought damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of the district court. Proceedings continued in the circuit court. In June 2022, Taylor filed a motion for leave to file a pleading to include causes of action against Judy Rankin. The circuit court granted Taylor’s motion. Taylor asserted claims against Judy Rankin for breach of contract, conversion, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Discovery proceeded with Taylor continuing to act, pro se. Ultimately, the matter was set for a jury trial. -2-  After the presentation of evidence at trial, the circuit court granted the Rankins’ motion for directed verdict with respect to the conversion claims asserted against them by Taylor. The jury found in favor of the Rankins on their claim for breach of contract -- but awarded no damages. The jury rejected Taylor’s claims for breach of contract. This appeal followed. Taylor argues that the trial court erred by denying him due process. Taylor claims that he was ignored by the courts of Oldham County, and without identifying any specific rule, he contends that the rules of civil procedure and the rules of professional conduct were violated throughout the litigation. Without any support from the record or citation to any legal precedent, Taylor also contends that the trial court erred by failing to award him damages for the Rankins’ breach of contract and conversion and by failing to order sanctions against the Rankins’ attorney for her “willingness to participate in this frivolous/malicious prosecution.” It is clear that the trial court’s judgment is in accordance with the jury’s verdict and that the court was exceedingly patient with Taylor throughout the proceedings. On appeal, we have endeavored to understand his arguments and to follow his reasoning. Despite the deficiencies in his brief, we nevertheless undertook