Fields v. Zanesville Police Dept.
2021 Ohio 3896
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Gerald D. Fields was indicted for drug offenses; $7,700 seized from his home was included as a forfeiture specification.
- A jury convicted Fields of the criminal counts but expressly found the $7,700 "is not subject to forfeiture."
- Fields filed motions to return the $7,700; the trial court denied those motions and Fields did not appeal those denials.
- This court previously dismissed Fields’s mandamus petition, holding his adequate remedy at law to reclaim property was an action in replevin (not an appeal from the denied motions).
- Fields filed a replevin action; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata barred the replevin because Fields failed to appeal the earlier denials.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding res judicata was improperly applied here and instructing the trial court to address remaining issues on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fields’s replevin action is barred by res judicata because he did not appeal the trial court's denials of his motions to return property | Fields: res judicata does not apply; the jury and judgment found the $7,700 not subject to forfeiture and precedent requires replevin as the remedy | Defendants: Fields should have appealed the trial court's denials; failure to do so bars collateral attack via replevin | Reversed: res judicata improperly applied here; given the jury verdict/judgment and controlling precedent, replevin is the proper remedy and res judicata would work an injustice |
| Whether the Zanesville Police Department and former prosecutor are proper/real parties (sui juris) | Fields: defendants failed to raise sui juris argument below; issue waived; pleadings could be amended under Civ.R. 15 if necessary | Defendants: ZPD is not sui juris and City should have been named; therefore defendants are not proper parties | Court declined to consider on appeal (waiver); left for trial court to address on remand; noted amendment/substitution could be available |
| Whether Fields’s earlier attempt to obtain relief by mandamus was appropriate (adequate remedy at law) | Fields: replevin is the proper, adequate remedy to recover unlawfully held property | Defendants (earlier): argued appeal from denials of motions to return property was the adequate remedy | Court (consistent with prior panel decision and Ohio precedent): replevin is the appropriate remedy to reclaim possession of property; mandamus not proper here |
| Whether summary judgment was properly granted | Fields: SJ was improper because a legal error (res judicata) was applied and factual/precedential issues remain | Defendants: SJ appropriate because no genuine issue and claim barred by res judicata | Reversed: trial court erred in granting summary judgment; case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Kral, 153 Ohio St.3d 321, 103 N.E.3d 814 (Ohio 2018) (Ohio Supreme Court: replevin is the proper action to reclaim possession of unlawfully seized property)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata bars subsequent actions based on same transaction when valid final judgment on merits exists)
- State ex rel. Kroger v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 80 Ohio St.3d 649, 687 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1998) (definition and scope of relitigation barred by res judicata)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio 2003) (stare decisis and adherence to controlling precedent)
- Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 424 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1981) (summary judgment standard; genuine issue of material fact precludes SJ)
- State ex rel. Jividen v. Toledo Police Dept., 112 Ohio App.3d 458, 679 N.E.2d 34 (6th Dist. 1996) (replevin is the proper remedy to recover unlawfully seized property)