2013 Ohio 4672
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Bringman appeals the April 12, 2013 judgment denying his motion for amercement.
- This appeal follows a prior 2013 decision discussing the earlier amercement bid and the service defect that voided the first denial.
- Bringman previously obtained a judgment against Blubaugh (2009) and sought a writ of execution directing Sheriff Sheldon to levy on Blubaugh's assets.
- An earlier motion for amercement (Nov. 14, 2011) was denied due to service noncompliance; this court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
- Bringman filed a second amercement motion on February 9, 2013; it was properly served on Sheriff Sheldon, who opposed.
- Amercement is a statutory remedy under R.C. Chapter 2707 intended to aid in collecting judgments, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied amercement. | Bringman contends Sheriff failed to execute the writ as directed. | Sheldon acted within the writ's letter and spirit by targeting assets described in the writ and by proper service. | Yes; court affirmed denial; Sheriff substantially complied and not liable for amercement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Carter, 67 Ohio St.3d 568 (1993) (limited, strict construction of amercement statutes)
- Conkling v. Parker, 10 Ohio St. 28 (1859) (strict adherence to statute before recovery against officer)
- Moore v. McClief, 16 Ohio St. 50 (1864) (penal character; must bring within letter and spirit of law)
- Duncan v. Drakeley, 10 Ohio 45 (1840) (early articulation of amercement requirements)
- Domigan; Webb v. Anspach, Domigan: 12 Ohio 220; Webb v. Anspach: 3 Ohio St. 522 (1843; 1854) (statutory remedies for official delinquency; strict approach)
- Langdon v. Summers Bros. & Co., 10 Ohio St. 77 (1859) (illustrates letter-and-spirit compliance requirement)