Dinardo v. Dinardo
2017 Ohio 4379
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sharon Dinardo obtained a $14,477.21 judgment against her ex-husband Armand for child-related expenses (braces) in 2012 and moved in Sept. 2015 under R.C. 1705.19 for a charging order against Armand’s membership interest in Genesis Real Estate Holding Group, LLC to satisfy the judgment.
- Armand filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment with a written agreement dated November 7, 2012 purporting to be Sharon’s signature, and later moved to dismiss/sever Genesis as a party.
- The trial court scheduled hearings; Armand repeatedly failed to appear and the court ordered him to produce the original signed agreement for the April 8, 2016 hearing, which he did not bring or attend.
- The magistrate found the judgment remained unpaid, concluded Sharon did not sign the purported satisfaction agreement, and issued a charging order against Armand’s LLC interest.
- Armand filed objections to the magistrate’s decision raising: (1) improper service/personal jurisdiction, (2) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for the domestic relations court to enter a charging order against the LLC, and (3) novation/satisfaction of the judgment. The trial court overruled his objections and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sharon) | Defendant's Argument (Armand) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Service / personal jurisdiction over Armand and Genesis | Sharon served and gave notice; court had jurisdiction to act on the charging order motion | Process was defective; Sharon failed to properly commence post-divorce proceedings and Genesis was never a party to the divorce | Waived on appeal (no timely objection to magistrate on this ground); no plain error shown; trial court’s adoption stands |
| 2. Subject-matter jurisdiction (domestic relations court authority) | Motion to charge LLC interest is within court authority to enforce domestic- relations judgments | Charging order is collateral and outside R.C. 3105.011 domestic relations jurisdiction | Waived on appeal for same reason; no plain error; trial court’s action affirmed |
| 3. Novation / satisfaction of judgment | Judgment remains unpaid; Sharon denies signing or accepting satisfaction; charging order appropriate | Armand produced a signed agreement and affidavit claiming payment and satisfaction/novation | Trial court accepted magistrate’s factual findings (no payment, no signature); Armand failed to provide required transcript or App.R.9(C) affidavit; novation/satisfaction rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 723 N.E.2d 571 (procedural waiver under Civ.R. 53 objections)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 579 N.E.2d 1099 (plain error standard in civil cases)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (App.R.9(C) narrative transcript principle)
- Moneywatch Cos. v. Wilbers, 106 Ohio App.3d 122, 665 N.E.2d 689 (definition and requirements for novation)
- Citizens State Bank v. Richart, 16 Ohio App.3d 445, 476 N.E.2d 383 (novation cannot be presumed; all parties must intend to extinguish original obligation)
- Wilson v. Lynch & Lynch Co., L.P.A., 99 Ohio App.3d 760, 651 N.E.2d 1328 (consideration requirement for novation)
- McGlothin v. Huffman, 94 Ohio App.3d 240, 640 N.E.2d 598 (novation elements)