Gilbert v. Midland Funding, L.L.C.
2019 Ohio 5295
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2011 Midland sued Gilbert in Findlay Municipal Court for unpaid credit-card debt; Gilbert defaulted, the court entered a default judgment, and Gilbert later paid the judgment.
- In 2015 Gilbert sued Midland, Midland Credit, and Encore in Hancock County Common Pleas, alleging the municipal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because she did not reside or sign the contract in that jurisdiction; she sought declaratory relief, restitution, and class relief for similarly situated persons.
- Gilbert moved to certify two classes (Collection Suit Defense Class and Unjust Enrichment Class); the trial court certified both classes on March 12, 2019, and rejected Midland’s argument that Lingo barred consideration of the claims.
- Midland appealed, arguing Lingo forbids a common pleas court from granting relief that effectively vacates or nullifies municipal/county court judgments.
- The Third District reversed, holding the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction under Lingo because Gilbert’s requested relief was in substance an attack that would vacate a municipal-court judgment; because of the jurisdictional defect the court declined to reach the class-certification issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common pleas court may entertain a suit seeking a declaration that a municipal default judgment is void and restitution for payments made | Gilbert: Lingo permits collateral attacks and equitable relief; her action is a permissible collateral attack or equitable claim to disgorge funds and stop enforcement | Midland: Lingo precludes a common pleas court from granting relief that effectively vacates municipal/county court judgments; only courts of direct review can do that | Reversed: Court held Hancock C.P. lacked jurisdiction under Lingo because the relief sought would in substance vacate or defeat a municipal judgment; declaratory action in another court was not a proper vehicle |
| Whether the trial court properly certified classes under Civ.R. 23 | Gilbert: She satisfied Civ.R. 23 for both proposed classes | Midland: Certification improper, and Lingo bars the underlying action so class relief cannot stand | Moot: Court found jurisdictional defect dispositive and did not decide Civ.R. 23 issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014) (common pleas court lacked authority to grant relief that would partially vacate municipal court judgments; declaratory-judgment action is not a substitute for appellate or postconviction review)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (authority to vacate another court's void judgments is conferred on courts of direct review)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void judgments are nullities and open to collateral attack)
- Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (2004) (equitable restitution against administrative actors discussed)
- Judy v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 100 Ohio St.3d 122 (2003) (equitable claims for restitution against administrative officials)
- Kingsborough v. Tousley, 56 Ohio St. 450 (1897) (definition and concept of collateral attack)