2018 Ohio 1471
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- David M. Wertman pled guilty (Jan 15, 2016) and agreed to a forfeiture specification directed at a 2008 Dodge Challenger; the trial court ordered forfeiture in its July 22, 2016 sentencing entry.
- The Challenger had been transferred into an irrevocable instrument titled “The David Wertman Trust” (created Oct 1, 2010); the Trust named David M. Wertman as sole beneficiary and trustee Connie Lawless (Wertman’s relative) refused to surrender the vehicle.
- The Trust filed a third-party petition under R.C. 2981.04(E)(1) claiming legal title to the Challenger and sought to reclaim it; the parties stipulated at hearing that the Trust was valid, the title transfer to the Trust was proper, and Wertman was the sole beneficiary.
- The trial court, after briefing, ruled for the State and ordered surrender of the Challenger to law enforcement (June 6, 2017); the Trust appealed and the appeals were consolidated.
- The central legal question was whether the Trust’s vested legal title defeated the State’s prior forfeiture of Wertman’s interest in the vehicle.
- The court concluded the case was moot because the Trust terminated under its express terms on February 10, 2018, at which point Wertman (the sole beneficiary) would hold legal title, and Wertman’s interest had already been forfeited in 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trust established a superior legal interest in the Challenger that required return of the vehicle | Trust: The Trust was valid, title properly vested in the Trust, and Trust owned the Challenger; thus property must be returned | State: Forfeiture of Wertman’s interest controls; Trust cannot avoid the earlier forfeiture, and subsequent events render the claim moot | The court found the case moot because the Trust terminated by its terms and Wertman’s forfeited interest cannot be remedied; the Trust’s assignment of error was overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (interpreting trusts focuses on settlor intent and is reviewed de novo)
- Domo v. McCarthy, 66 Ohio St.3d 312 (trust interpretation principles)
- Saunders v. Mortensen, 101 Ohio St.3d 86 (contract/trust construction reviewed de novo to effectuate intent)
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (doctrine of judicial restraint; courts should not decide moot questions)
- Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst., 64 Ohio St.3d 470 (courts may take judicial notice of events that render cases moot)