Gingrich v. G & G Feed & Supply, L.L.C.
2022 Ohio 982
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Gingrich sued G & G Feed and others after an alleged assault; complaint named “IronGate Equestrian Center.”
- Defendants failed to answer; trial court entered default judgment and awarded damages; that judgment was briefly vacated on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion but this court reversed and reinstated the default judgment and post-judgment interest.
- During collection, Gingrich learned “IronGate” was a registered trade name of Otter Fork Equestrian Complex, LLC and filed a praecipe to issue a certificate of judgment in Otter Fork’s name.
- Otter Fork’s counsel contacted the clerk to remove Otter Fork from the certificate; Gingrich moved to correct the record to add Otter Fork as the legal judgment debtor.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding a judgment against a trade name is not automatically a judgment against the legal entity that registered it; Gingrich appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judgment entered against a trade name (IronGate) is enforceable against the legal entity that registered the trade name (Otter Fork) under R.C. 1329.10(C) | Bright permits suing and obtaining judgment against a trade/fictitious name; such a judgment is enforceable against the entity using that name | The plaintiff could and should have identified the underlying legal entity (Secretary of State records); a judgment against a trade name does not automatically bind the registrant | Court held Bright controls: a judgment against a trade name is enforceable against the entity using that name (Otter Fork). |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Gingrich’s motion to correct the record and amend the judgment/certificate of judgment to name Otter Fork (Civ.R.15(A) and 15(C)) | Amendment to substitute or correct the real party in interest should be liberally allowed; relation-back and notice requirements are satisfied because Otter Fork knew of the suit and participated using the trade name | Allowing amendment would improperly substitute parties after judgment and prejudice the registrant | Court held amendment should have been allowed under Civ.R.15(A) (liberal leave) and 15(C) (relation back: same transaction, notice, and knowledge). Trial court erred; case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Family Medicine Found., Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 (2002) (R.C. 1329.10(C) permits suit against a party named only by its fictitious name)
- Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573 (1992) (limits on suing sole proprietorships under fictitious names)
- Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (Courts should freely grant leave to amend under Civ.R.15 when justice requires)