[Cite as Phoenix Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Nichols, 2013-Ohio-5278.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PHOENIX FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, : JUDGES: 

INC. AN ASSIGNEE OF: DUTRO : 

USED CARS, INC. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. CT2013-0013 

 : 

JODI NICHOLS : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Court, Case No. CVF-1201014 

JUDGMENT: REVERSED & REMANDED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 19, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: 

 

JAMES L. BLUNT JODI NICHOLS, pro se 

445 Longview Ave. 44 Village Green Court 

Mansfield, OH 44903 Crooksville, OH 43731 

 
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0013 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Phoenix Financial Solutions, Inc., an Assignee of: Dutro Used 

Cars, Inc., hereby appeals from the February 12, 2013 Consent Judgment Entry 

entered in the Muskingum County Court. Appellee Jodi Nichols is pro se and did not file 

a brief. 

{¶2} This case is factually and procedurally similar to Phoenix Financial 

Solutions, Inc., an Assignee of: Dutro Used Cars, Inc. v. Jackson, 5th Dist. Muskingum 

No. CT2013-0019, which is decided upon the same rationale as the instant case. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶3} Appellee bought a car from Dutro Used Cars, Inc. and signed a 

promissory note with interest at a rate of 21.0% and then failed to remit the payments as 

required by the promissory note. The debt was assigned to appellant on September 28, 

2012, and appellant filed a complaint in the Muskingum County Court on December 27, 

2012 for the deficiency balance, requesting the contractual rate of interest from the date 

of sale of the repossessed vehicle. 

{¶4} Appellant served the summons and complaint upon appellee by certified 

mail which appellee signed for on January 8th, 2013. 

{¶5} On February 12, 2013, the trial court granted a Consent Judgment Entry 

against appellee, but sua sponte reduced the interest rate in the entry from the agreedupon contractual rate to the statutory rate. 

{¶6} Appellant now appeals from the February 12, 2013 Consent Judgment 

Entry of the trial court. 
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0013 3 

{¶7} Appellant raises one assignment of error: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT PLAINTIFF THE 

CONTRACTUAL RATE OF INTEREST, PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE 

1343.03, AS AGREED TO BY DEFENDANT ON A CONSENT TO JUDGMENT.” 

ANALYSIS 

{¶9} Appellant argues the trial court improperly entered judgment including the 

statutory interest rate instead of the contractual interest rate. In light of our decision in 

Dutro Used Cars, Inc. v. Spohn, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT08-0047, 2009-Ohio-2912, 

we agree, and therefore we reverse the judgment of the trial court. 

{¶10} Appellant argues the trial court improperly reduced the interest rate from 

the contractual rate of 21.0% to the statutory rate. Ohio Revised Code Section 1343.03 

states in pertinent part: 

(A) In cases other than those provided for in sections 1343.01 and 

1343.02 of the Revised Code, when money becomes due and 

payable upon any bond, bill, note, or other instrument of writing, 

upon any book account, upon any settlement between parties, 

upon all verbal contracts entered into, and upon all judgments, 

decrees, and orders of any judicial tribunal for the payment of 

money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract or other 

transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum 

determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised Code, 

unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest in 
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0013 4 

relation to the money that becomes due and payable, in which case 

the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate provided in that 

contract. Notification of the interest rate per annum shall be 

provided pursuant to sections 319.19, 1901.313, 1907.202, 

2303.25, and 5703.47 of the Revised Code. (Emphasis added.) 

{¶11} As we stated above, we have previously held when a written contract 

contains a legal rate of interest then the rate should be applied to the judgment. Dutro 

Used Cars, Inc., supra, 2009-Ohio-2912, ¶ 9, citing Amer. Gen. Fin., Inc. v. Bauer, 5th 

Dist. Delaware No. 00CAG08023, unreported, 2001 WL 498508 (May 4, 2001). 

CONCLUSION 

{¶12} We therefore sustain appellant’s sole assignment of error. The judgment 

of the Muskingum County Court is reversed and this matter is remanded for further 

proceedings in accord with this opinion. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Hoffman, P.J. 

Farmer, J., concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER