Poindexter v. Grantham
2011 Ohio 2915
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Poindexter, Grantham, and Kelso, siblings, own three Cleveland properties jointly.
- Poindexter filed a declaratory judgment action in Sept. 2009 seeking termination of Grantham and Kelso’s interests and an accounting, plus appointment of a receiver for 13603 and 13605 Crennell Avenue.
- In April 2010, Poindexter moved for a receiver over the two Crennell properties; an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2010.
- The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing; instead, the judge and parties discussed the matter privately and granted the motion to appoint a receiver, naming Robert Gutner.
- The court’s ruling relied on a record lacking testimony or exhibits, with no explicit findings or articulation of the authority under R.C. 2735.01.
- Grantham appealed, challenging the lack of hearing, lack of rationale, and failure to meet evidentiary standards; the majority reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by appointing a receiver without an evidentiary hearing? | Poindexter argues the court properly appointed a receiver under R.C. 2735.01 based on needs to preserve rights. | Grantham contends no sufficient evidentiary basis or hearing was provided to support appointment. | Yes; error to appoint without evidentiary hearing. |
| Was there a proper explanation or rationale for appointing a receiver? | Poindexter asserts merit under statutory authority and necessity to preserve rights. | Grantham asserts the court failed to provide rationale or findings. | No; absence of articulated rationale requires reversal. |
| Was clear and convincing evidence of irreparable loss required and shown? | Poindexter contends the record suffices to show danger to property and rights. | Grantham asserts the evidence was insufficient or not properly presented in a hearing. | Not satisfied on the record; need evidentiary support. |
| Did the court rely on the correct statutory basis (R.C. 2735.01) for appointment of a receiver? | Poindexter relies on the general equitable power to appoint a receiver in 'other cases' under the statute. | Grantham contends the record lacks specific grounds and statutory justification. | Court failed to specify relevant subsection and reasoning; remand required. |
| Should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the receiver motion? | Poindexter maintains the matter should proceed with hearings and evidence. | Grantham argues the original decision was appropriate based on record presented. | Yes; remand for evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity Centers Dev. Co. v. S. Coast Ctrs. Inc., 83 Ohio App.3d 643 (Ohio App. 1992) (appointment of receiver requires clear justification and proof)
- Neece v. Natl. Premier Protective Servs., LLC, 2007-Ohio-5960 (Ohio App. 2007) (abuse of discretion when no hearing or evidence is considered)
- Victory White Metal v. N.P. Motel Sys., Inc., 2005-Ohio-2706 (Ohio App. 2005) (hearing not always required if affidavits and admissions show danger)
- Taranto v. Portale, 174 Ohio App.3d 749 (Ohio App. 2008) (trial court abuse when journal entry lacks explanation)
- Pal v. Strachan, 2009-Ohio-730 (Ohio App. 2009) (pretrial familiarity can support receiver appointment if supported by evidence)
- Reserve Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Burbach, 2005-Ohio-6097 (Ohio App. 2005) (receiver appointment implications in multi-party property disputes)
- Malloy v. Malloy Color Lab., Inc., 63 Ohio App.3d 434 (Ohio App. 1989) (early authority on evaluating evidence for receivership)