Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Apple Blossom Flowers, L.L.C.
2021 Ohio 2563
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Ohio Department of Taxation (DOT) recorded a certificate of judgment against Apple Blossom Flowers, LLC for unpaid sales tax ($2,022.84) in June 2015.
- In Sept. 2020 DOT served a request for production citing Civ.R. 26, 34, and 69 to aid post‑judgment collection; appellee did not respond.
- DOT filed a motion to compel under Civ.R. 37(D); the trial court held a hearing (appellee absent) and denied the motion, striking the request for production on the ground that Civ.R. 34 service is limited to after service of summons/complaint.
- DOT appealed, arguing Rule 69 permits post‑judgment discovery in the manner provided by the civil rules and that Rule 34’s pre‑commencement/service limitations do not apply to Rule 69 discovery.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, concluded trial court misapplied the rules, and reversed and remanded, sustaining DOT’s assignments of error regarding post‑judgment discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 34’s pre‑service limitation bars post‑judgment discovery under Civ.R. 69 | DOT: Civ.R. 69 permits discovery "in the manner provided in these rules," so post‑judgment RFP under Civ.R. 34 is allowed without service of summons/complaint | Trial court/appellee: Civ.R. 34(B) allows RFP only after service of summons and complaint, and no summons/complaint was filed here | Court: Civ.R. 69 authorizes post‑judgment discovery in the manner of the civil rules; Rule 34’s commencement‑service restriction does not bar Rule 69 discovery — reversal |
| Proper mechanism/service for post‑judgment discovery | DOT: Service for post‑judgment discovery is governed by the civil rules applicable to post‑judgment proceedings (e.g., Civ.R. 5), not commencement rules | Appellee: (implicit) service rules for commencing an action should control | Court: Ohio precedent (Klein, Slodov) supports using post‑judgment service procedures; trial court misapplied service limitation tied to commencing actions |
| Whether a tax assessment judgment is entitled to same discovery rights as other judgments | DOT: Judgments entered under R.C. 5739.13 have same effect as other judgments; DOT should be able to use Rule 69 collection tools | Appellee: (implicit) tax assessment judgments differ such that initiation/service rules limit DOT’s post‑judgment discovery | Court: Cites Hakim — tax assessment judgments have same effect; assignments raising a second‑class status were moot after resolving discovery issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hakim v. Kosydar, 49 Ohio St.2d 161, 359 N.E.2d 1371 (Ohio 1977) (tax‑assessment judgments have same effect as other judgments)
- State ex rel. Klein v. Chorpening, 6 Ohio St.3d 3, 450 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio 1983) (Rule 69 allows discovery in aid of execution; Rule 5 service can suffice for post‑judgment proceedings)
- Slodov v. Stralka, 71 Ohio App.3d 137, 593 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Civ.R. 4 does not apply to post‑judgment proceedings)
- Castlebrook, Inc. v. Dayton Properties, Ltd., 78 Ohio App.3d 340, 604 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio Ct. App.) (review standards where trial court misapplies law)
- Hahn v. Satullo, 156 Ohio App.3d 412, 806 N.E.2d 567 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial courts have broad discretion to regulate discovery)