Wizards of Plastic Recycling L.L.C. v. R & M Plastic Recycling L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 3672
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wizards LLC obtained a default judgment against R&M Plastic Recycling, LLC and sought garnishment against R&M's bank account.
- Wizards Inc., acting as receiver for Wizards Inc., intervened in the Akron Municipal Court case and filed an answer and cross-claim.
- The municipal court vacated its prior order granting intervention, denied Collins’ motion to intervene, and struck Collins’ answer and cross-claim, prompting Collins’ appeal.
- The appellate court sustained Collins’ first assignment of error, remanded for proper consideration of post-judgment intervention factors, and reversed the judgment to permit further proceedings.
- The court held that the other two assignments were not ripe for review and declined to address them, then awarded costs to the appellee and remanded for execution consistency with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-judgment intervention was permissible | Collins argues intervention is allowed after judgment under Civ.R. 24(A). | Wizards LLC contends post-judgment intervention is improper and the matter is moot. | First assignment sustained; remanded for proper consideration of factors. |
| Whether denial of Collins’ motion to intervene was an abuse of discretion | Collins asserts the trial court abused its discretion by denying intervention. | Wizards LLC argues absence of timely, proper basis to intervene post-judgment. | Abuse of discretion; remand for proper analysis of intervention factors. |
| Whether Collins’ second and third assignments are ripe for review | Collins contends the court erred in vacating the judgment and in transferring venue. | Wizards LLC asserts those issues are resolved or moot. | Not ripe; declined to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (mootness and extrinsic evidence as to mootness concluded)
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (fraud in procurement limits mootness rule)
- Rauch v. Noble, 169 Ohio St. 314 (1959) (mootness and judgment satisfaction moots appeal)
- Lynch v. Lakewood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 116 Ohio St. 361 (1927) (syllabus on mootness after satisfaction of judgment)
- Norton v. Sanders, 62 Ohio App.3d 39 (1989) (factors for post-judgment intervention (timeliness, preservation, prejudice))