[Cite as Burton Carol Mgt., L.L.C. v. Ziegler, 2015-Ohio-4926.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

BURTON CAROL MANAGEMENT, LLC, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2015-L-010

 - vs - : 

IRM B. ZIEGLER, et al., : 

 Defendants-Appellants. : 

Civil Appeal from the Mentor Municipal Court, Case No. 14 CVG 00227. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Michael D. Linn, and James J. Costello, Powers Friedman Linn P.L.L., Four Commerce 

Park, Suite #180, 23240 Chagrin Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44122 (For PlaintiffAppellee). 

Irm B. Ziegler, pro se, P.O. Box 601, Grand River, OH 44045 (For DefendantAppellant). 

Joseph R. Ziegler, pro se, 120 Court Street, Chardon, OH 44024 (For DefendantAppellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} Irm and Joseph Ziegler timely appeal two decisions issued by the Mentor 

Municipal Court: 1. the January 9, 2015 Judgment Entry ordering garnishment against 

Irm only and 2. the January 15, 2015 Judgment Entry addressing various issues. This 

appeal is one of many filed by appellants arising from the jury’s 2014 verdict in 

appellee’s favor against Irm for $2,778.65. 
 2

{¶2} Although Joseph Ziegler was originally named as a defendant in this suit, 

appellee voluntarily dismissed him well before the jury trial. An appeal only lies on 

behalf of a party that can show his rights have been affected and if his affected interest 

is immediate and pecuniary. Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Public Utilities 

Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, 42 N.E.2d 758 (1942); In re Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio 

St.2d 111, 113, 249 N.E.2d 794 (1969). The sole argument on appeal in this case 

arises from the garnishment against Irm only, which arose from the verdict against her 

only. Joseph has not been affected by the garnishment ruling. Accordingly, he is not a 

proper party to this appeal, and the arguments herein are addressed on behalf of 

appellant Irm Ziegler only. 

{¶3} Her sole assignment of error asserts: 

{¶4} “Did the assigned trial court judge act without subject matter jurisdiction, 

abuse it’s [sic] discretion, create manifest injustice, structurally err, plain err, unlawfully 

exercised judicial construction and/or is their [sic] ad hoc decision contrary to, conflicts 

with, and/or involves a unreasonable application of clearly established federal law 

entitling indigent pro se defendants (debtors) equal protection procedural due process 

of law and due process access to the courts before unlawfully garnishing defendants 

property/assets/debts obtained by plaintiffs/creditors through fraud and denial of right to 

a fair trial in violation of state/federal law and the US Constitution?” 

{¶5} We do not, however, reach the merit of appellant’s assignment of error on 

appeal because it is rendered moot as a result of appellee’s satisfaction of judgment. 

Wiest v. Wiegele, 170 Ohio App.3d 700, 2006-Ohio-5348, 868 N.E.2d 1040, ¶11 (1st 

Dist.); Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243, 245, 551 N.E.2d 1249 (1990); Hagood v. 

Gail, 105 Ohio App.3d 780, 785, 664 N.E.2d 1373 (11th Dist.1995). 
 3

{¶6} It is well established that satisfaction of a judgment renders an appeal 

from that judgment moot. Wiest at ¶11. “‘Where the court rendering judgment has 

jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties, and fraud has not 

intervened, and the judgment is voluntarily paid and satisfied, such payment puts an 

end to the controversy, and takes away * * * the right to appeal or prosecute error or 

even to move for vacation of judgment.’ And if an appellant neglects to obtain a stay of 

the judgment, the non-appealing party has the right to attempt to obtain satisfaction of 

the judgment even though the appeal is pending. When ‘the non-appealing party is 

successful in obtaining satisfaction of the judgment, the appeal must be dismissed 

because the issues raised in the appeal have become moot.’” (Citations omitted.) Id. 

{¶7} In Wiest, the Wiegeles did not voluntarily satisfy the judgment by making 

payments. “Instead, Wiest was able to satisfy the judgment through garnishment of 

funds from the Wiegeles' bank accounts. * * *.” Id. at ¶12. Thus, regardless of the 

involuntariness of the satisfaction of judgment, the First District Court of Appeals 

“dismissed the appeal because the issue had become moot—the case was over. No 

further proceedings, * * * were possible.” Id. at ¶13. 

{¶8} In this case, appellee filed its notice of satisfaction of judgment with the 

trial court June 30, 2015, and the trial court issued its judgment entry July 8, 2015 

acknowledging that the judgment against Irm Ziegler had been satisfied. Because 

these items were not properly before us, we ordered the trial court to supplement the 

record on appeal, which it did. 

{¶9} Upon a review of the supplemented record, this appeal is moot based on 

satisfaction of judgment. Id. Thus, we cannot address appellant’s assignment of error 

on appeal because our opinion would be purely advisory. Id. 
 4

{¶10} Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is moot and this appeal is 

dismissed. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., concurs, 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., concurs in judgment only.