Court Opinion

ID: 9905200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:10:39.865605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:34.717045
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Barney, 2023-Ohio-4282.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio Department of Taxation,                 :

                Judgment Creditor-Appellee, :                     No. 23AP-220
                                                               (C.P.C. No. 14JG054834)
v.                                                    :
                                                              (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Mitchell V. Barney,                                   :

                Judgment Debtor-Appellant. :

                                           D E C I S I O N

                                  Rendered on November 21, 2023

                On brief: Keith D. Weiner & Associates Co., LPA, and
                Suzana Pastor, for appellee.

                On brief: Mitchell V. Barney, pro se.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

JAMISON, J.
        {¶ 1} Judgment Debtor-appellant, Mitchell V. Barney, appeals from a judgment of
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, adopting a magistrate’s decision ordering
disbursement of garnished funds to Judgment Creditor-appellee, State of Ohio Department
of Taxation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        {¶ 2} The material facts in this case are undisputed. On November 4, 2014,
appellee submitted to the trial court, a certified personal-income-tax assessment against
appellant in the principal amount of $5,676.99. According to appellee, the assessment had
become final, by operation of law, when appellee obtained and recorded a judgment lien in
the total amount of the assessment. On January 14, 2021, on the appellee’s application, the
common pleas court ordered the garnishment of appellant’s funds held by Citizens Bank.
No. 23AP-220                                                                                2

        {¶ 3} Pursuant to R.C. 2716.06, the Franklin County Clerk of Courts (“Clerk”)
served appellant with a “notice to the judgment debtor of garnishment of property other
than personal earnings” that provided in relevant part as follows:
              You are hereby notified that this court has issued an order in
              favor of the * * * creditor in this proceeding, directing that some
              of your money in excess of $500.00, property, or other credits
              other than personal earnings, now in the possession of the
              garnishee [Citizens Bank], be used to satisfy your debt to the
              judgment creditor. This order was issued on the basis of the
              judgment creditor’s judgment against you that was obtained in,
              or certified to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

        {¶ 4} On February 25, 2021, Citizens Bank filed an “answer of garnishee,” wherein
Citizen’s Bank certified that on February 17, 2021, appellant owned checking accounts
containing more than $500.00 in money, property, or credits other than personal earnings.
Citizens Bank further averred that the amount in excess of $500.00 is $275.35.
Accordingly, Citizens Bank delivered $275.35 to the Clerk. Appellant disputed appellee’s
right to the funds, and on March 9, 2021, appellant timely requested a hearing.
        {¶ 5} On March 10, 2021, appellee moved the court for an order disbursing the
garnished funds to appellee. On May 5, 2021, a court magistrate held a garnishment
hearing by video. On May 14, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision which concludes as
follows: “The [Clerk] is hereby ORDERED to release the sum of $275.35 to the Judgment
Creditor, the State of Ohio Department of Taxation.” (Emphasis sic.) (May 14, 2021 Mag.’s
Decision at 3.)
        {¶ 6} On June 3, 2021, appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. On
July 20, 2021, appellant filed additional documents in opposition to the garnishment. On
August 18, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision
as its own. Appellant timely appealed to this court from the judgment entered August 18,
2021.
        {¶ 7} On appeal, this court reviewed the August 18, 2021 judgment entry and sua
sponte concluded it did not constitute a final appealable order because the trial court failed
to explicitly rule on appellant’s objections. State Dept. of Taxation v. Barney, 10th Dist.
No. 21AP-461, 2023-Ohio-636. In our decision, we ruled as follows:
              Because the trial court did not enter judgment in this case and
              did not order the requested relief, we find the August 18, 2021
No. 23AP-220                                                                              3

              judgment entry is not a final appealable order. Therefore, the
              appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Barney at ¶ 21.
       {¶ 8} On remand, the trial court issued a March 6, 2023 decision and entry
overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, adopting the magistrate’s
decision as its own, and ordering disbursement of the garnished funds to appellee.
       {¶ 9} Appellant timely appealed to this court from the March 6, 2023 judgment.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
       {¶ 10} Appellant assigns the following as trial court errors:
              [1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
              DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S FUNDS TOTALLING $275.35
              WERE PROPERLY PAYABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF-
              APPELLEE PURSUANT TO THE GARNISHMENT FILED ON
              JANUARY 14, 2021.

              [2.] THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
              GRANTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR THE
              RELEASE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S FUNDS.

              [3.] THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING WAS AGAINST THE
              MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
       {¶ 11} “An appellate court will not disturb a trial court judgment adopting a
magistrate’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.” TBF Fin. L.L.C. v. Wilkerson, 10th
Dist. No. 18AP-974, 2019-Ohio-3493, ¶ 11, citing Columbus Div. of Income Tax v. Capital
Data Sys., Inc., 186 Ohio App.3d 775, 2010-Ohio-1026, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.). Accordingly, a
court of appeals may only reverse a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision if the
trial court acted unreasonably or in an arbitrary manner. Mayle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-541, 2010-Ohio-2774, ¶ 15.
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
       {¶ 12} In appellant’s first and third assignments of error, appellant contends the
trial court erred by ordering the Clerk to disburse the garnished funds because appellant’s
accounts did not contain more than $500 on February 17, 2021. Accordingly, we shall
consider these assignments of error together.
No. 23AP-220                                                                              4

       {¶ 13} “R.C. 2716.06 provides that the judgment debtor should dispute the
judgment creditor’s right to garnish the wages at a requested hearing by demonstrating an
exemption or reason the garnishment is improper.” Tisdale v. ADP, L.L.C., 10th Dist. No.
20AP-521, 2021-Ohio-3827, ¶ 17. Thus, appellant bears the burden of proving an exception
or reason the garnishment is improper. Id. at ¶ 18.
       {¶ 14} R.C. 2716.13(B) provides in relevant part as follows:
              Upon the scheduling of a hearing relative to a proceeding in
              garnishment of property, other than personal earnings, under
              division (A) of this section, the clerk of the court immediately
              shall issue to the garnishee three copies of the order of
              garnishment of property, other than personal earnings, and of
              a written notice that the garnishee answer as provided in
              section 2716.21. * * * The order shall bind the property in excess
              of four hundred dollars, other than personal earnings, of the
              judgment debtor in the possession of the garnishee at the time
              of service.

       {¶ 15} At the evidentiary hearing, appellant testified the balances in his checking
accounts at Citizens Bank were reduced to $0 when Citizens Bank filed its answer and
deposited his funds with the Clerk. In other words, appellant argues that all funds in his
Citizens Bank accounts were exempt from garnishment pursuant to R.C. 2716.16. At the
hearing, appellant claimed he had documentary evidence to substantiate his claim.
       {¶ 16} In the magistrate’s decision, the magistrate made the following observation:

              Mr. Barney represented to the Magistrate that he possessed
              documents that demonstrated his beliefs. The Magistrate
              informed Mr. Barney that, if he wished to have the Magistrate
              consider those documents as evidence, he was to file the
              documents with the Franklin County Clerk of Courts by 5:00
              p.m. on May 6, 2021.

              Although the Magistrate has waited a week to render this
              decision, Mr. Barney has not filed any documents with the
              Franklin County Clerk of Courts.

(May 14, 2021 Mag.’s Decision at 2.)
       {¶ 17} The magistrate recommended the trial court issue an order releasing the
funds to appellee upon concluding that appellant “failed to demonstrate any factual or legal
No. 23AP-220                                                                               5

basis for the Court to vacate the January 14, 2021 garnishment order.” (May 14, 2021 Mag.’s
Decision at 2.)
       {¶ 18} Appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision are predicated entirely on
the evidence he submitted to the court on July 20, 2021. In appellant’s objections, appellant
argues the magistrate erred in concluding that appellant had not met his burden of
establishing the sums deposited with the Clerk were exempt from garnishment because the
evidence he submitted on July 20, 2021 established that the balance of his Citizens Bank
checking accounts were less than $500 on February 17, 2021. The trial court found that
because appellant failed to meet the deadline established by the magistrate, the magistrate
did not err in concluding, based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, the funds were
non-exempt. Appellant does not dispute the trial court’s finding in this appeal.
       {¶ 19} Alternatively, the trial court found as follows:

              Even if the Court could consider those records, at best the
              records show that the balance in account enduing [sic] in 1302
              was $0.00 on February 9, 2021. However, Garnishee Citizens
              certified on February 17, 2021 that Barney had more than
              $500.00 in money, property, or credits other than personal
              earnings. Thus, even if the Court could consider these records,
              they do now show that Barney’s bank accounts did not have
              more than $500.00 on February 17, 2021, when Garnishee
              Citizens submitted its Answer.

(Aug. 18, 2021 Jgmt. Entry at fn. 2)

       {¶ 20} Our review of the information submitted by appellant on July 20, 2021 and
at the March 9, 2021 hearing shows that appellant had two separate checking accounts with
Citizens Bank: account number ending in 5001 and account number ending in 1302. On
February 9, 2021, Citizens Bank notified appellant that it had placed a “hold” on $93.28 in
account number ending in 5001, and $182.07 in account number ending in 1302, for a total
of $275.35. (Deft.’s Ex. 1.) Appellant argued that the “hold” amount was the total account
balance for each account rather than the balance in excess of $500.00, and that Citizens
Bank failed to follow the instructions in the “Court Order and Notice of Garnishment” when
it filed its certified “Answer of Garnishee” on February 25, 2021.
       {¶ 21} In support of this claim, appellant submitted heavily redacted checking
account statements that show one of the accounts, presumedly account number ending in
No. 23AP-220                                                                                                6

1302, was reduced to $0.00 by an “attachment withdrawal” of $182.07 on February 9, 2021.
(Deft.’s Ex. 1(a).) The other account statement shows an “attachment withdrawal” of
$93.00 on July 9, 2021, but appellant did not provide any statement or document showing
the balance in account number ending in 5001 either on February 9, 2021, or on
February 17, 2021, the date Citizens Bank certified the amount appellant had on deposit in
excess of $500.00. (Deft.’s Ex. 1(a).) Thus, we agree with the trial court that the documents
belatedly submitted to the trial court on July 20, 2021 do not support appellant’s claim that
his account balance was less than $500.00 on February 17, 2021 when garnishee, Citizens
Bank, filed its answer.
        {¶ 22} Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it overruled appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, adopted the
decision as its own, and ordered the Clerk to disburse the garnished funds to appellee.
Appellant’s first and third assignments of error are overruled.
        {¶ 23} In appellant’s second assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court
erred when it prematurely granted appellee’s March 17, 2023 motion to disburse the
garnished funds to appellee, and subsequently failed to rule on his motion for a stay of
execution.
        {¶ 24} Initially, we note the March 6, 2023 judgment entry clearly contains an order
requiring the Clerk to disburse the garnished funds to appellee.1 Appellee nevertheless filed
a March 17, 2023 motion seeking an order requiring the Clerk to disburse the garnished
funds to appellee. The attached certificate of service indicates service by regular mail was
sent to appellant on March 14, 2023. The trial court granted appellee’s motion on April 3,
2023.
        {¶ 25} On April 4, 2023, appellant filed a motion to stay the March 6, 2023
judgment, and on April 5, 2023, appellant filed both a notice of appeal to this court from
the March 6, 2023 judgment, and memorandum in opposition to appellee’s motion to
release funds. The trial court did not rule on the motion to stay, and the record does not
disclose whether the Clerk disbursed the garnished funds to appellee.

1 The judgment entry provides in relevant part: “Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Judgment Creditor

the State of Ohio Department of Taxation. The Clerk of Courts is instructed to deliver to the Judgment
Creditor’s Attorney, * * * the sum of $275.35, less the court costs held. This is a final appealable order and
there is no just cause for delay.” (Mar. 6, 2023 Jgmt. Entry at 3.)
No. 23AP-220                                                                                                   7

         {¶ 26} Civ.R. 62(A) provides for a stay on motion after judgment as follows:

                 In its discretion and on such conditions for the security of the
                 adverse party as are proper, the court may, upon motion made
                 any time after judgment, stay the execution of that judgment
                 or stay any proceedings to enforce the judgment until the time
                 for * * * filing a notice of appeal[.]
         {¶ 27} Appellee maintains the trial court’s ruling on the motion to release funds was
not premature because appellant failed to timely respond to appellee’s motion and failed to
timely move for a stay. We agree.
         {¶ 28} Pursuant to Civ.R. 6(C)(1), a response to a written motion shall be filed within
14 days of service of the motion.2 Civ.R. 6(D) provides that “[w]henever a party has the
right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after
the service of a notice or other document upon that party and the notice or paper is served
upon that party by mail * * *, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.”
         {¶ 29} Appellee served the motion by regular mail on March 14, 2023. Adding three
days for regular mail service as required by Civ.R. 6(D), appellant’s response to appellee’s
motion to release funds was due on or before March 31, 2023, as appellee contends. Thus,
the trial court’s April 3, 2023 distribution order granting the motion to release funds was
not issued prematurely.
         {¶ 30} Regarding the motion for a stay, we generally presume a trial court has
overruled a motion when it does not issue a written ruling. Mills v. Mills, 10th Dist. No.
10AP-495, 2011-Ohio-2848, fn. 1, citing State v. Hillman, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1230, 2008-
Ohio-2341. Here, the presumption is supported by the March 6, 2023 judgment entry
which explicitly orders the Clerk to disburse the garnished funds to appellee’s attorney, and
the trial court’s subsequent April 3, 2023 entry granting appellee’s unopposed motion to
release funds. Given our ruling on appellant’s first and third assignments of error, we
cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reconsider the two prior rulings
concerning disbursement of the garnished funds.
         {¶ 31} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s second assignment of
error.

2 Pursuant to Civ.R. 5(D), “[a]ny paper after the complaint that is required to be served shall be filed with the

court within three days after service.”
No. 23AP-220                                                                     8

V. CONCLUSION
      {¶ 32} Having overruled appellant’s three assignments of error, we affirm the
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.

                       MENTEL and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
                                 _____________