Shaffer v. Jones
2017 Ohio 7730
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Peter Schaffer obtained multiple arbitration awards against Adam Jones (an NFL player) beginning in 2013 and filed an action to confirm those awards in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Schaffer later amended the judgment several times to add subsequent awards.
- Aaron Cudworth, Thomas Urbanski, and Kathleen Urbanski (proposed intervenors) are separate judgment creditors of Jones from earlier Nevada judgments transferred to Ohio; they have pursued garnishments of Jones’ earnings.
- Because Jones had multiple judgment creditors, garnishments were subject to a statutory "stacking" schedule (each creditor gets periodic distributions). The parties disputed priority and distribution timing.
- The proposed intervenors sought to intervene in Schaffer’s confirmation action, alleging Schaffer and Jones colluded and that the trial court lacked authority to continuously amend its judgment, effectively harming intervenors’ collection rights.
- The intervenors moved to intervene under Civ.R. 24(A)(2) but did not attach any pleading as required by Civ.R. 24(C). The trial court denied the motion; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schaffer) | Defendant's Argument (Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the motion to intervene is a final, appealable order | Denial of intervention in a special proceeding that affects substantial rights is final | Intervention denial prevents them from attacking the confirmation judgments and thus affects a substantial right | Court: Denial is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to intervene | Motion lacked required pleading under Civ.R. 24(C); denial proper | Intervention proper because their only route to attack confirmation judgments is by joining this action; pleading attachment unnecessary when seeking relief from judgment (Civ.R. 60(B)) | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; Civ.R. 24(C) requires a pleading per Civ.R. 7(A), and absence justified denial |
| Whether a Civ.R. 60(B) motion can substitute for the Civ.R. 24(C) pleading requirement | Rule requires a pleading as defined in Civ.R. 7(A); a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is not one of those pleadings | They argued practice allows post-judgment intervention together with Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate judgments | Court: Civ.R. 60(B) is not a Civ.R. 7(A) pleading; cases cited do not excuse Civ.R. 24(C); requirement is mandatory |
| Whether intervention was otherwise timely and proper on the merits | Procedural noncompliance justified denial regardless of timeliness | Timely and necessary to protect garnishment interests and to challenge continuous amendments | Court: Even if other elements might be argued, failure to attach a proper pleading required denial and was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. Enrichment Ctr. of Wishing Well, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1997) (proceedings to confirm arbitration awards are governed by Ohio Arbitration Act)
- Kelm v. Kelm, 93 Ohio App.3d 686 (10th Dist. 1995) (arbitration confirmation proceedings are special statutory proceedings)
- Buyer’s First Realty, Inc. v. Cleveland Area Bd. of Realtors, 139 Ohio App.3d 772 (8th Dist. 2000) (orders in arbitration/special statutory proceedings analyzed for finality)
- Ockrant v. Ry. Supply & Mfg. Co., 111 Ohio App. 276 (1st Dist. 1958) (prior authority addressing intervention and special proceedings)
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 2007) (denial of intervention does not affect substantial right when relief can be obtained in another action)
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 2014) (party may not use a separate action to collaterally attack prior adjudicated orders)
- State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 121 Ohio St.3d 507 (Ohio 2009) (failure to attach required pleading to motion to intervene supports denial)
- State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2003) (discusses procedural requirements for motions to intervene)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (abuse of discretion requires unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable action)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review of trial court discretion requires sound reasoning process)
- Southside Community Dev. Corp. v. Levin, 116 Ohio St.3d 1209 (Ohio 2007) (denial of intervention can affect a substantial right when intervention is sole means to protect claimed interests)