[Cite as Lancaster v. Sweetman Rental, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-3492.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CITY OF LANCASTER : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 12-CA-128 

SWEETMAN RENTAL, LLC ET AL. : 

Defendants-Appellees : 

And : 

ROGER WERTZ : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 2011 CV 

01223 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 7, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

SUZANA KRASNICKI ROGER WERTZ, pro se 

KEITH D. WEINER & ASSOC. CO. 9909 Birchwood St. 

75 Public Square, 4th Floor Pickerington, OH 43147 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Roger Wertz appeals from the October 16, 2012 Order of the 

Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas granting appellee City of Lancaster’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment.1 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} Appellant Wertz is the president and chief operating officer of appellee 

Sweetman Rental, LLC (“Sweetman”). On December 5, 2011, appellee City of 

Lancaster (“Lancaster”) filed a complaint in the trial court against appellant and 

Sweetman, alleging they failed to pay certain municipal net profit and withholding taxes 

as follows: 

[I]n Count I, against [Sweetman] for net profit taxes for the tax years 

of 2004 and 2005, in the principal amount of $1,569.73, plus 

penalties and prejudgment interest in the amount of $601.20, plus 

30% statutory collection costs in the about of $651.28, for a total of 

$2,822.21, plus additional interest on the principal balance only at 

the statutory rate of 12% per annum from August 11, 2011; and in 

Count II against [Sweetman and appellant] for withholding taxes for 

the tax years of 2004 through 2010, in the principal amount of 

$32,322.83, plus penalties and prejudgment interest in the amount 

of $7,434.59, plus 30% statutory collection costs in the amount of 

$11,627.23, for a total of $51,684.65, plus additional interest on the 

principal balance only at the statutory rate of 36% per annum from 

 

1 Appellee Sweetman Rental, LLC is not a party to this appeal. 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 3 

August 11, 2011 and costs, less credit for payments received post 

chargeoff. 

{¶3} On March 13, 2012, the trial court entered default judgment against 

Sweetman. Sweetman and appellant remitted payments slightly in excess of $5,000 on 

their total obligation; as of June 21, 2012, appellee has credited Sweetman and 

appellant in the amount of $3,370.31; $2097.03 was applied to Sweetman’s net profit 

tax obligations, and $1,273.28 was applied to the joint withholding tax obligations. 

{¶4} On June 28, 2012, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment against 

appellant; appellant responded and appellee replied. The trial court sustained 

appellant’s motion for summary judgment on October 16, 2012 and granted judgment, 

jointly and severally, in Count II only, in the principal amount of $32,322.83, plus 

penalties and prejudgment interest in the amount of $7,434.59, plus 30% statutory 

collection costs in the amount of $11,627.23 for a total of $51,684.65, plus additional 

interest on the principal balance only at the statutory rate of 36% per annum from 

August 11, 2011 and costs; less credit for payments received and applied to Count II’s 

withholding taxes only, in the amount of $1,273.28. 

{¶5} Appellant appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting appellee’s 

motion for summary judgment. 

{¶6} Appellant raises one assignment of error: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶7} “I. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER GENUINE ISSUES OF 

MATERIAL FACT RELATED TO THE MATTER BEFORE IT.” 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 4 

ANALYSIS 

I.

{¶8} Appellant argues the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for 

summary judgment because it should have taken into account issues of material fact in 

a “parallel and related legal action.” We disagree. 

{¶9} Summary judgment motions are to be resolved in light of the dictates of 

Civ.R. 56, which was reaffirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Zimmerman 

v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 663 N.E.2d 639 (1996): 

Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be 

granted, it must be determined that (1) no genuine issue as 

to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it 

appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come 

to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most 

strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is 

adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary 

judgment is made. State ex rel. Parsons v. Fleming, 68 Ohio 

St.3d 509, 511, 628 N.E.2d 1377 (1994), citing Temple v. 

Wean United, Inc. 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 

(1977). 

{¶10} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment motions, we must 

stand in the shoes of the trial court and review summary judgment motions on the same 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 5 

standard and evidence as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio 

St.3d 35, 36, 56 N.E.2d 212 (1987). 

{¶11} Appellant asks us to consider facts arising from a different Fairfield County 

case and appended exhibits to his brief related thereto. There is no indication, 

however, that those exhibits were submitted to the trial court in the instant case in 

response to appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and we may not consider them 

on appeal. App.R. 9(A) defines the record on appeal as “[t]he original papers and 

exhibits thereto filed in the trial court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, including 

exhibits, and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries prepared by the clerk of 

the trial court * * *.” Appellant's argument is based entirely upon matters not contained 

in the trial court record and may not be considered. State v. Olmstead, 5th Dist. 

Richland No. 2007-CA-119, 2008-Ohio-5884, ¶ 20; Swinderman v. Weaver, 5th Dist. 

Tuscarawas No. 2001 AP 04 0030, 2002-Ohio-89. 

{¶12} Beyond the procedural irregularity, we also affirm this matter on 

substantive grounds. Appellant asks us to prevent appellee from collecting the tax 

liability from appellant personally until a determination has been made as to the 

sufficiency of the corporate assets but cites no legal basis for doing so. Instead, 

appellee directs us to City of Lancaster Code Section 181.07(b), which states as 

follows: 

Such employer in collecting said tax shall be deemed to hold the 

same, until payment is made by such employer to the City of 

Lancaster, Ohio as a Trustee for the benefit of the City of 

Lancaster, Ohio and any such tax collection by such employer from 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 6 

his employees shall, until the same is paid to the City of Lancaster, 

Ohio be deemed a trust fund in the hand of such employer. Every 

employer or officer of a corporation is deemed to be a Trustee for 

the City of Lancaster in collecting and holding the tax required 

under this ordinance to be withheld. The officer or employee have 

control or supervision of, or charged with the responsibility of, filing 

the report and making payment is personally liable for failure to file 

the report or pay the tax due as required by this section. The 

dissolution of a corporation or other cessation of a business does 

not discharge an officer’s or employee’s liability for prior failure of 

the corporation to file returns or pay tax due. 

{¶13} The cited ordinance essentially mirrors R.C. 5747.13 and Ohio Adm.Code 

5703-7-15. Appellant has failed to raise any issue of material fact and appellee has 

thus successfully established it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

{¶14} We find no basis upon which to reverse the trial court’s decision to grant 

summary judgment for appellee City of Lancaster. 
Fairfield County, Case No.12-CA-128 7 

CONCLUSION 

{¶15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the 

Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Hoffman, P.J. 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN