[Cite as Johnson v. Dattilo Investors, L.L.C. , 2015-Ohio-317.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101486

PRECIOUS T. JOHNSON, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

vs. DATTILO INVESTORS, L.L.C., ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2012 CVG 009576

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Blackmon, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2015ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS David M. Lynch David M. Lynch, Attorney at Law 333 Babbitt Road Suite 333 Euclid, OH 44123

FOR APPELLEES Precious T. Johnson, pro se 10414 Pierpont Avenue Cleveland, OH 44108 Marcus Hall, pro se 10414 Pierpont Avenue Cleveland, OH 44108SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.: {¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accel erated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1

and Loc.R. 11.1. Defendant s-appellants Dattilo Investors, L.L.C., et al ., appeal the decision of

the trial court that denied the motion to return funds of Anthony L. Dattilo (“Dattilo”). For the

reasons stated he rein, we affirm. {¶2} Plaintiffs Precious T. Johnson and Marc us Hall obtained a judgment in the Cleveland Municipal Court, Hous ing Division against Dattilo Investors, L.L.C. in the amount of $12,700. 1 The judgment was awarded after the trial court determined that Dattilo, as an agent of Dattilo Investors, L.L.C., had unr easonably entered property rented to the plaintiffs without giving prior notice, shot the plaintiffs’ dog, made no attempt to find the dog or contact the plaintiffs, and later boasted cruelly to the plaintiffs that he had shot the dog. {¶3} In June 2013, pursuant to an order of garn ishment for other than personal earnings, funds were garnished from an account at Char ter One Bank in partia l satisfaction of the judgment. Eight months later, Dattilo filed a motion to return f unds. His sole claim was that the funds had been taken from his personal acc ount. The trial court denied the motion. {¶4} The trial court recognized that a judgment creditor is permitted to garnish other than personal earnings from a third party. The court further indicated that it was found that Dattilo was acting as an agent of Dattilo Investors, L.L.C., when he committed the acts that were the basis of liability, that it appeared the funds were held by an ag ent of the judgment debtor, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to garnish funds th at he held on behalf of the company. The trial court also noted that Dattilo Investors, L.L.C., did not challenge the garnishment when notice of

1 We note that the underlying judgment was entered against Dattilo Investors, L.L.C. The action was originally filed against Dattilo Investment Group, L.L.C.it was issued in June 2013, that Dattilo did not bring a challenge under R.C. 2715.40 or 2329.84, and that the garnished funds had b een disbursed to the plaintiffs. {¶5} Dattilo timely filed this appeal. Under his sole assignment of error, Dattilo claims

the trial court erred in permitting garnishment of his pers onal account without determining the personal account contained cor porate funds. We find no merit to his argument under the

circumstances of this case. {¶6} As this court has previously recognize d, R.C. 2716.01(B) allows a judgment creditor to garnish the property of a judgment debtor ev en when the property is “in the possession of a person other than the person agains t whom judgment was obtained.” Sky Bank v. Lenart &

Assocs ., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99403, 2013-Ohio-5122, ¶ 9, citing Januzzi v. Hickman , 61 Ohio St.3d 40, 572 N.E.2d 642 (1991). In this case, any funds of Dattilo Investors, L.L.C., that were in the possession of Dattilo, as an agent thereof, were subject to garnishment. To the extent Dattilo wishes to challeng e ownership of the funds, “issues pertaining to the ownership of garnished funds are strictly governed by statute.” Sky Bank at ¶ 21. {¶7} A judgment debtor may challenge a garnishment and may demand a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2716.06 and 2716.13. Dattilo Inve stors, L.L.C., never challenged the garnishment order. {¶8} A third party who claims ownership of funds may bring a challenge under R.C.

2715.40 and 2329.84. Dattilo does not claim that he did not have notice of the garnishment order. If Dattilo, as a person other than the judgment debtor, wished to challenge the garnishment, he should have filed a thir d-party claim pursuant to R.C. 2715.40 or 2329.84. Dattilo never brought a claim under these provisi ons and never claimed that he did not hold

funds in the account on behalf of the judgment debtor.{¶9} Accordingly, we find the trial court prope rly ordered garnishment of the funds and

denied Dattilo’s motion. {¶10} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recove r of appellants co sts herein taxed.

The court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR