Sutton v. Sutton
2017 Ohio 5559
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Rodd Sutton sued his ex-wife Victoria Douglas in 2006; Victoria conveyed property to her mother, Rosemary Douglas, and Sutton added a fraudulent-conveyance claim.
- A jury awarded Sutton monetary judgments against Victoria and Rosemary; Sutton later sought to amend the judgment to place a lien on 3093 Ghent Ct. to permit foreclosure.
- The trial court held Sutton’s motion in abeyance because Rosemary filed for bankruptcy in the Middle District of Florida.
- In August 2016 EnTitle L.L.C. moved to intervene in the action, claiming it was the current title holder of the Ghent Ct. property; EnTitle filed a memorandum and exhibits but did not attach a pleading as required by Civ.R. 24(C).
- The trial court denied EnTitle’s motion to intervene on September 12, 2016; EnTitle appealed, arguing the denial was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying EnTitle’s motion to intervene | EnTitle: it is the current title holder and should be allowed to intervene to protect its title | Sutton: EnTitle failed to comply with Civ.R. 24(C) because it did not file an accompanying pleading | Court affirmed denial — motion defective under Civ.R. 24(C) for lack of pleading |
| Proper standard of review for denial of intervention | EnTitle implied abuse-of-discretion review | Sutton argued abuse-of-discretion; opinion notes a view that intervention-as-of-right denials can be de novo | Court noted abuse-of-discretion is typical but result same under either standard; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1995) (failure to comply with Civ.R. 24(C) is fatal to a motion to intervene)
- Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 2004) (reinforces the requirement that motions to intervene comply with Civ.R. 24(C))