E. Liverpool v. Buckeye Water Dist., 2012 Ohio 2821

This is an expedited garnishment appeal involving Buckeye Water District (BWD) and OPWC against East Liverpool, with CFBank as garnishee.
East Liverpool obtained a final water contract judgment against BWD for breach of contract, culminating in a $4.8 million judgment on appeal.
Garnishment targeted seven BWD bank accounts containing approximately $4.5 million; six accounts remained frozen.
OPWC intervened to protect its loan interests; trial court overruled objections and ordered garnishment.
Issues concerned sovereign immunity, the effect of revenue liens (USDA) on garnishment, and whether funds pledged to secure bonds could be garnished.
Court affirmed the judgment in part, modified to clarify garnishable amount, and remanded for orderly disposition of the garnishment order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether garnishment may reach governmental property of a political subdivision.	BWD’s immunities bar garnishment of its assets.	Garnishment is not barred because BWD acts in a proprietary capacity; contract claims are not immune.	Garnishment against BWD is permitted; immunity does not bar contract-based garnishment.
Whether USDA revenue liens preclude garnishment of the CFBank accounts.	USDA liens grant super-priority protection to revenues.	USDA liens exist but do not bar garnishment; must trace funds; special fund exemptions apply.	USDA liens do not prevent garnishment; tracing required; some funds exempt, but overall garnishment permitted with adjustments.
Whether OPWC funds pledged to OPWC have priority over East Liverpool’s judgment.	OPWC funds are pledged and should be exempt.	No evidence of a valid pledge; funds not exempt.	OPWC funds not shown to be pledged; OPWC defenses rejected; garnishment affirmed with limitations.
Whether the litigation reserve and other USDA-related funds are exempt from garnishment.	Reserves are exempt under the special fund exemption.	Reserves are not properly earmarked and can be used for operating expenses.	Litigation reserve not exempt; operating-expense priority allows garnishment; some reserves may be garnished.

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction, 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for appellate review of weight of the evidence)
State ex rel. Baldine v. Davis, 1 Ohio App.2d 117 (Ohio 1964) (waterworks property treated as subject to levy; proprietary function)
State ex rel. Kitchen v. Christman, 31 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1972) (special fund exemption and debt limitations for bonds funded by revenues)