2020 Ohio 6994
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Barton purchased multiple homes in a property-flipping scheme, later sued Uri Gofman/Karka and obtained a 2013 civil judgment (trebled RICO damages plus attorneys’ fees).
- Gofman and Karka pleaded guilty in separate criminal prosecutions and the courts entered forfeiture orders; Ohio sent forfeiture checks to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office (CCPO).
- CCPO deposited the checks into its Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF), which pooled forfeiture proceeds and was subsequently reduced by expenditures; county records show the Gofman/Karka deposits are no longer traceable.
- Barton (and his lawyer Pittman) sued Cuyahoga County in 2016 seeking forfeited funds (statutory claim under R.C. 2923.34/2981.06 and claims for replevin and conversion); cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment and granted the County’s; the Eighth District affirmed, rejecting plaintiffs’ statutory theory and holding tort claims time-barred because the funds were commingled and not recoverable in equity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton may recover forfeited funds from the County under R.C. 2923.34/2981.04 | Barton: Having prevailed in the RICO civil suit, he has a statutory right to forfeiture proceeds to satisfy his judgment. | County: No private cause of action against the county under those statutes; statutory procedures govern claims in the criminal forfeiture court. | Court: No private right to sue the county for the forfeited funds; statutory remedy does not authorize this suit. |
| Whether R.C. 2923.34(M)(1) 180‑day rule required plaintiffs to sue the County within 180 days | Barton: Relies on §2923.34(M)(1) to claim priority to forfeited property. | County: 180‑day provision applies to civil actions against the wrongdoing defendant, not suits against the prosecutor/county. | Court: 180‑day rule pertains to actions against the forfeitor; it does not create a private cause of action against the county. |
| Whether plaintiffs can obtain equitable relief (traceable fund) or only legal damages | Barton: Funds are recoverable to satisfy his award; seeks equitable relief (replevin). | County: Forfeited funds were commingled in LETF and spent, so they are not specifically identifiable for equitable relief. | Court: Funds were commingled/expended; under Cleveland v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. equitable relief is unavailable and the claim is legal. |
| Whether replevin/conversion claims are barred by limitations or immunity | Barton: Seeks recovery/remedy against County for retention of funds. | County: Claims are legal damages, so two‑year limitation for political subdivisions applies; alternatively, immunity/abandonment defenses. | Court: Claims sound in law, are time‑barred by R.C. 2744.04(A), and summary judgment for County was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (standards for summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (resolving doubts for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (affidavit must show personal knowledge to authenticate evidence)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (party affidavit contradicting deposition testimony cannot defeat summary judgment without explanation)
- Fawcett v. G.C. Murphy & Co., 46 Ohio St.2d 245 (statutory policy cannot be enforced by private action absent legislative intent)
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459 (affidavit incorporation of facts may suffice under certain circumstances)
- Cleveland v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Comp., 159 Ohio St.3d 459 (equitable recovery requires specifically identifiable/traceable funds; commingled/spent funds yield legal, not equitable, claims)
- Montanile v. National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan Board of Trustees, 577 U.S. 136 (equity requires traceable, identifiable funds)
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- AAA Enterprises v. River Place Community, 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (definition of abuse of discretion)