Dyer v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc.
2017 Ohio 4139
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 the Dyers sued Schwan's and its employee Roberts for injuries from a delivery-truck collision; a jury returned a verdict for the Dyers for $10,988,793.11, journalized June 8, 2016.
- The Dyers filed a motion for prejudgment interest post-judgment; Schwan's filed post-trial motions (JNOV/new trial) that remained pending.
- The Dyers initiated a separate garnishment proceeding (June 16, 2016) under R.C. Chapter 2716 seeking funds from Schwan's accounts; garnishees deposited $7,856,007.62 with the clerk.
- Schwan's moved to stay enforcement of the civil judgment (Civ.R. 62(A)) and to stay/dismiss the garnishment; Judge McIntosh stayed enforcement of the civil-judgment on July 21, 2016.
- In the garnishment case, Judge Young (Aug. 5, 2016) stayed the garnishment conditioned on Schwan's posting a supersedeas bond and ordered the clerk to return the deposited funds; the Dyers appealed and Schwan's cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dyers) | Defendant's Argument (Schwan's) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a garnishment proceeding under R.C. 2716.11 could be commenced when the trial court had journalized a jury verdict but post‑judgment motions (prejudgment interest and post‑trial motions) remained pending | The garnishment was properly commenced; the trial court erred by staying the garnishment and returning funds | A garnishment cannot be based on a non‑final judgment; because the journalized verdict was not final (prejudgment interest pending), the garnishment action should have been dismissed | The journalized jury verdict was not a "judgment" for garnishment purposes because prejudgment‑interest motion was pending; garnishment proceeding was void and should be dismissed |
| Whether the trial court properly stayed the garnishment and returned deposited funds | Stayed enforcement exceeded jurisdiction in the garnishment action and the order was void | The trial court lacked authority to execute upon a non‑final judgment; dismissal required without bond condition | Court sustained Schwan's cross‑assignment (dismissal required) and dismissed Dyers' appeal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. First Int’l Fid. & Trust Bldg., Ltd., 113 Ohio St.3d 474 (2007) (a journalized jury verdict is not a final, appealable order when prejudgment‑interest motion remains pending)
- Doss v. Thomas, 183 Ohio App.3d 795 (2009) (garnishment statutes are strictly construed; garnishment orders issued without statutory authority are invalid)
- Rice v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co., 163 Ohio St. 606 (1955) (garnishments are purely statutory proceedings)
- Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944) (an unambiguous statute must be applied as written)