[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, 2015 
ATTORNEY 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 44108 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.: 

{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 

and Loc.R. 11.1. Defendants-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 herein, we affirm. 

{¶2} Plaintiffs Precious T. Johnson and Marcus Hall obtained a judgment in the 

Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing 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 unreasonably 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 garnishment for other than personal earnings, 

funds were garnished from an account at Charter One Bank in partial satisfaction of the 

judgment. Eight months later, Dattilo filed a motion to return funds. His sole claim was that 

the funds had been taken from his personal account. 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 agent of the judgment debtor, and 

that the plaintiffs were entitled to garnish funds that 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 been 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 personal account without determining the 

personal account contained corporate funds. We find no merit to his argument under the 

circumstances of this case. 

{¶6} As this court has previously recognized, R.C. 2716.01(B) allows a judgment creditor 

to garnish the property of a judgment debtor even when the property is “in the possession of a 

person other than the person against 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 challenge 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 Investors, 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 third-party claim pursuant to R.C. 2715.40 or 2329.84. 

Dattilo never brought a claim under these provisions 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 properly ordered garnishment of the funds and 

denied Dattilo’s motion. 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable 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