In re Estate of Jackson
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
* * * * *
Duane L. Galloway, for appellees.
Brandon Jarrett-Jackson, pro se.
* * * * *
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Pro se defendant-appellant, Brandon Jarrett-Jackson, appeals the July 2, 2019 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, finding appellant in contempt for failing to comply with the court‘s order and sentencing him to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On July 30, 2018, appellees Brenda Jeter and Paul Moore, as co-еxecutors of the estate of Starlin Jackson, filed a complaint for concealment of assets. The complaint alleged that appellant was in possession of real and personal property which were estate assets. Appellant‘s answеr claimed that the decedent authorized the transfer of real property to Cold Water Capital, LLC, of which appellant wаs the “authorized representative,” and it was not to be included in the estate. Appellant further claimed mismanagement of City Servicе Taxi, LLC, by co-executor, Paul Moore, and resulting “financial damage.”
{¶ 3} A trial on the matter was held on November 5, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the cоurt entered judgment in favor of appellees. Specifically, pursuant to
{¶ 4} On February 8, 2019, appellees filed a motion requesting that appellant be fоund in contempt by failing to re-convey the seven parcels of real property as well as the rents collected. Following a hearing on March 6, the court found appellant in contempt
{¶ 5} In the court‘s July 2, 2019 judgment entry, it found that appellаnt violated the terms of the March 20, 2019 judgment entry and was guilty of contempt of court pursuant to
The trial court did not perfect proper service of the initial court hearing. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to present evidence against a member of a limited liability company and hold that membеr liable. The trial court allowed the removal of real estate property. The trial court also allowed the removal of limited liability company and the assets from that company be transferred to the plaintiff. The court also allowed statements of counsel in briefs and arguments before the court to make summary judgment against the defendant.
{¶ 6} In appellant‘s multi-argument assignment of error he argues that the court erred in finding him personally liable for the debt or obligation of a limited liability company, that he was improperly served with notice of the initial court proceedings, and
{¶ 7} In support of appellant‘s argument that he could not be found in contempt because the parcels had been transferred to Cold Water Capital, LLC, not appellant personally, he relies on a contract case where the Fifth Appellate District noted the generаl principle that an individual is not personally liable for the debts of an LLC of which he or she is a member. Dover Philadelphia Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. SJS Restaurants, Ltd., 185 Ohio App.3d 107, 2009-Ohio-6187, 923 N.E.2d 220 (5th Dist.). Unlike Dover, in the present cаse the court found that the fraudulent transfers were committed by appellant, not Cold Water Capital, LLC. Appellant‘s argument lack mеrit.
{¶ 8} As to service of notice, appellant argues that notice of the court hearing to “establish the executor” of the estate was improperly sent and not received until 30 days following the court hearing. We note that this action was commenced on July 30, 2018, as а complaint for concealment of assets. The record relating to the underlying probate proceedings is not before this сourt. Thus, we have nothing to review relating to this error. Further, appellant relies on the notice requirements of
{¶ 9} Appellant next takes issue with the evidence presented at the November 5, 2018 hearing. The absence of a transcript of the hearing on a contempt motion requires that this court presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the trial court‘s decision. This is so because without a complete record, we are unable to ascertain the basis for thе trial court‘s judgment to determine if it was in error. See Terry v. Kellstone, Inc., 6th Dist. Erie No. E-12-061, 2013-Ohio-4419, ¶ 16, citing State v. Sweet, 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 650 N.E.2d 450 (1995).
{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found apрellant in contempt. Appellant‘s assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 11} On consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice was done the party complaining and the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed. Pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall сonstitute the mandate pursuant to
C.A. No. E-19-043
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Christine E. Mayle, J.
CONCUR.
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.