2021 Ohio 516
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Dina Towers condo dispute: plaintiffs (H&R Cincy Properties; Nancy and Hisham Asha) owned 10 units; defendants (Marcus & Norma Fontain, Cinvesco, Cinvexco, and Dina Towers Association) owned the other 20.
- Trial court appointed a receiver (Prodigy) on Aug 10, 2018; parties settled Aug 27, 2018 and entered an agreed dismissal on Sept 26, 2018 that dismissed several defendants and stated “Court costs to be paid by the Defendants.”
- The settlement/entry left Cinvexco as a remaining defendant and provided the receivership would terminate Feb 11, 2019.
- Plaintiffs and the receiver later sought extensions; the receivership continued and the receiver later sought fees totaling the full receivership period (through Aug 2019).
- The trial court’s final entry (Sept 12, 2019) assessed the receiver’s fees (including post‑Feb 11 fees) against the dismissed defendants; defendants appealed arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to bind dismissed parties to costs incurred after dismissal.
- The court of appeals held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to require dismissed defendants to pay receivership fees incurred after Feb 11, 2019, reversed, and remanded for calculation of fees properly chargeable to those defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissed defendants can be ordered to pay receivership fees incurred after dismissal/Feb 11, 2019 | Settlement and Civ.R. allocation plus R.C. 2735.04(C) permit receivership fees to be taxed as court costs against defendants | Once dismissed, court lacked personal jurisdiction/standing over those defendants and cannot bind them to future costs | Court: Dismissed defendants cannot be required to pay receivership fees incurred after Feb 11, 2019; remand to determine amounts owing for fees incurred before that date |
| Whether court retained jurisdiction via settlement entry, the receivership appointment, or inherent contempt powers to impose post‑dismissal fees | Settlement reserved costs to defendants; receivership authority and R.C. 2735.04(C) justify assessing fees; inherent powers support remedial measures for misconduct | Dismissal entry did not incorporate the settlement or expressly reserve jurisdiction; receivership jurisdiction is ancillary and does not revive jurisdiction over dismissed parties; no contempt finding was made | Court: No. Dismissal entry did not reserve enforcement jurisdiction; receivership or inherent powers did not authorize imposing post‑dismissal fees; contempt was not found |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 2002) (unconditional or voluntary dismissal deprives trial court of jurisdiction to proceed)
- Infinite Sec. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties, II, Ltd., 143 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 2015) (court may enforce a settlement after dismissal only if the dismissal entry incorporates the settlement terms or expressly retains jurisdiction)
- WBCMT 2007-C33 Office 7870, LLC v. Breakwater Equity Partners, LLC, 133 N.E.3d 607 (Ohio 2019) (personal‑jurisdiction limits entering personal obligations against parties)
- Dayton Lodge, L.L.C. v. Hoffman, 6 N.E.3d 638 (Ohio 2013) (court retains jurisdiction over a receivership until the receiver is discharged and accounts closed)
- In re Gourmet Servs., Inc., 142 B.R. 216 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1992) (a receivership is ancillary to the main action and does not restore jurisdiction over dismissed parties)