2022 Ohio 1589
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2014 McClendon was indicted on multiple counts including human trafficking, promoting prostitution, drug possession, and possessing criminal tools; he pleaded guilty to an amended trafficking count and forfeiture and was sentenced to 15 years.
- After conviction was affirmed on delayed appeal, McClendon sought return of personal property seized during investigation; the trial court granted a motion for release and the Sheriff's Office released property to McClendon’s representative on June 3, 2018.
- McClendon later filed a replevin complaint in October 2019 seeking return of property he claimed was not released; the Sheriff’s Office moved for summary judgment and filed a corrected motion with supporting records (warrant inventory, indictment, journal entries showing release).
- The trial court allowed the corrected summary-judgment filing, denied McClendon’s default-judgment request, and gave McClendon 30 days to respond; he did not file a response or request more time.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office on September 2, 2021; McClendon appealed, arguing a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation for lack of notice/opportunity to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McClendon was denied due process by not being given notice/opportunity to respond to the summary-judgment motion | McClendon: court failed to notify him or give sufficient time to respond or file a cross-motion, violating Fourteenth Amendment due process | Sheriff: provided corrected motion and documentary proof that property was released; court afforded 30 days to respond; McClendon did not respond or seek more time | Court: No due-process violation; appellee met initial Civ.R. 56 burden; McClendon failed to produce specific facts or timely response, so summary judgment was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden; nonmoving party must produce specific facts showing genuine issue)
- North v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 9 Ohio St.2d 169, 224 N.E.2d 757 (1967) (summary judgment should be encouraged in proper cases)
- Peters v. B. & F. Transfer Co., 7 Ohio St.2d 143, 219 N.E.2d 27 (1966) (discussion that sending a case to a jury to speculate is as pernicious as denying trial by jury)
- J. C. Penney Co. v. Robison, 128 Ohio St. 626, 193 N.E. 401 (1934) (quoted on jury trial principles)