Selwyn v. Grimes
2014 Ohio 5147
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1984 Selwyn sued Grimes for injuries from an alleged 1983 assault; Grimes defaulted and a June 21, 1985 judgment was entered for $100,000.
- Selwyn made one execution attempt around September 19, 1985; no further executions followed.
- Grimes filed bankruptcy in March 1987; Selwyn filed an adversary proceeding and the bankruptcy court ruled the judgment non-dischargeable on August 17, 1987; Grimes was discharged from bankruptcy on October 29, 1987.
- On June 4, 2012 Selwyn moved to revive the 1985 judgment; the trial court granted revival on June 7, 2012 without clerk service of process.
- After garnishment, Grimes moved to vacate; the administrative judge later vacated the June 2012 order and directed refiling. Selwyn refiled January 16, 2014, was served, and the court again revived the judgment but dated it back to June 7, 2012.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the revival was untimely under the pre-2004 21-year revival period because the judgment became dormant five years after the lone 1985 execution attempt (i.e., August 19, 1990).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bankruptcy court’s order refusing to discharge the debt constitutes an “execution” that delays dormancy under R.C. 2329.07(A)(1) | Selwyn: the bankruptcy decision should count as an execution, making the dormancy date August 17, 1992, and thus his 2012 revival timely | Grimes: the bankruptcy ruling is not an execution on the judgment and does not restart the five-year period | Court: Bankruptcy refusal to discharge is not an execution; dormancy occurred five years after Selwyn’s 1985 execution attempt (Aug. 19, 1990) |
| Whether the motion to revive filed in 2012 (and later refiled in 2014) was timely and whether the initial June 2012 order was void for lack of clerk service | Selwyn: relied on the 2012 grant and the asserted later dormancy date to validate revival and interest dating | Grimes: the 2012 grant was void because there was no proper service and the refiled 2014 motion was outside the 21-year revival window | Court: The June 2012 order was procedurally defective (no clerk service); under the 21-year rule Selwyn’s timely window expired Aug. 19, 2011, so the revival was untimely and the judgment must be vacated/reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Check Cashers, Inc. v. Cary, 196 Ohio App.3d 132 (10th Dist. 2011) (statutory revivor of dormant judgments is governed by R.C. scheme)
- Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510 (2010) (courts must give effect to each word in statute and ascertain legislative intent from statutory text)
- State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 123 Ohio St.3d 195 (2009) (statutory construction principles: read text in context using rules of grammar and common usage)