RAY MILLERS v. DANIEL KASNETT, ET AL.
No. 100448
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
January 29, 2015
2015-Ohio-298
Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court, Case No. 2012 CVH 000777
Lester S. Potash
Lester S. Potash, Attorney at Law
25700 Science Park Drive
Suite 270
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Thomas P. Owen
Robert G. Friedman
Powers Friedman Linn, P.L.L.
23240 Chagrin Boulevard
Suite 180
Cleveland, Ohio 44122
{¶1} Third-party appellant, Sandra Kasnett, appeals from the judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court finding appellee, Ray Millers, was entitled to $17,510.51 contained in a bank account maintained in Sandra‘s name. Sandra argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the amount of the transferred judgment and amount sought from the bank account was over the jurisdictional limit of the municipal court. After a thorough review of the records and law, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} A default judgment was rendered against Daniel Kasnett in the amount of $296,287.87 by a court in Denver, Colorado. On February 9, 2011, Millers filed for the domestication of this judgment with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. On April 22, 2010, Millers‘s foreign judgment was domesticated. A certificate of judgment was filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court on January 13, 2012, by Millers. Millers engaged in collection actions attempting to satisfy the judgment. On July 16, 2012, Millers filed an affidavit of garnishment for other than personal earnings seeking to obtain the balance of a J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase“) account held by Sandra. Millers asserted the funds in the account belonged to Daniel. Chase deposited the money in the account, $17,510.51, with the court. Sandra contested ownership of the funds and requested a hearing.
{¶3} A hearing was held before a magistrate on February 5, 2013, which was not transcribed or recorded. Several financial statements were used as exhibits during the hearing, which are contained in the record, and excerpts from Sandra‘s deposition were introduced.
{¶4} The magistrate found that Sandra‘s testimony sufficiently established that the account was established to assist Daniel with his finances and debts. The magistrate also found that the money in the account came from multiple sources: “The Chase bank account received various deposits from many sources, including checks from [Sandra‘s] husband, her sister, as well as other sources. [Sandra] also received funds and checks written to her for services and jobs performed by [Daniel], which were also deposited into the Chase account.” Addressing the traceability of the funds in the account, the magistrate found,
[Sandra] previously and subsequently opened and closed multiple accounts in both her name alone, and joint accounts in her and [Daniel‘s] name. Monies were transferred to and from multiple bank accounts: checking and savings. [Sandra], in what she claimed was managing [Daniel‘s] account and finances, had commingled funds from several other accounts with the Chase bank account at issue.
The magistrate went on to find, “[Sandra] attempted to account for all the monies that had been in the bank account at issue, and used for [Daniel‘s] personal expenditures. However, many withdraws were done for cash, receipts were not available, and the commingling of multiple accounts made it difficult to account for everything.”
{¶5} The magistrate‘s decision was issued on April 19, 2013, and the trial court adopted the decision the same day. Sandra filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction on April 30, 2013. She also filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision on May 3, 2013. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, citing
- The $15,000 monetary limitation of a municipal court‘s jurisdiction applies to the transfer of a judgment from another court, thus the municipal court below lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept for filing a certificate of judgment in excess of $15,000 and to undertake proceedings in aid of execution upon that judgment.
- The trial court failed to conduct an independent review of the Magistrate‘s Decision as mandated by
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) . - The court below erred as a matter of law when sustaining the garnishment of the funds in Account 5382.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Standing
{¶6} First, this court must address Millers‘s argument that Sandra does not have standing to appeal the lower court order because she never filed a motion to intervene pursuant to
{¶7} Here, Sandra filed a motion as a third-party plaintiff asserting ownership of the garnished funds. This court has recently set forth the means of asserting oneself into attachment or garnishment proceedings. Sky Bank v. Lenart & Assocs., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99403, 2013-Ohio-5122. There, we held that a party could either file for leave to intervene pursuant to
{¶8}
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant‘s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant‘s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
B. Jurisdiction
{¶10} First, Sandra claims that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to accept the transfer of a judgment over $15,000.
{¶11} The jurisdiction of the municipal courts of Ohio is limited by statute.
{¶13} But these cases do not dictate the outcome here. This is because the municipal court of Cleveland has exceptional powers under the municipal court jurisdictional statute,
[t]he municipal court of Cleveland also has jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings in the nature of creditors’ bills, and in aid of execution to subject the interests of a judgment debtor in real or personal property to the payment of a judgment of the court. In those actions and proceedings, the court may proceed to
marshal and foreclose all liens on the property irrespective of the amount of the lien, and all vested or contingent rights in the property.
There is no limiting language in
{¶14} Even though substantially similar language to that found in
{¶15} “In interpreting statutes, a reviewing court should make every effort to give effect to each word, phrase, and clause.” Selwyn v. Grimes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101252, 2014-Ohio-5147, ¶ 12, citing Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-2550, 929 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 21. A court should attempt to discern the legislative intent of the statute, “normally found in the words and phrases of the statute, read in context according to standard rules of grammar and common usage.” Id., citing State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 123 Ohio St.3d 195, 2009-Ohio-4908, 915 N.E.2d 320, ¶ 14.
{¶16}
{¶17} The inclusion of this same language in the Cleveland subsection would be duplicative and superfluous if Sandra‘s interpretation were accepted. The inclusion of personal property as already stated in
{¶18} Therefore we hold that
C. Independent Review by the Judge
{¶20} A magistrate may be appointed to hear disputes pursuant to
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) requires that a trial court, in ruling on timely filed objections to a magistrate‘s decision, “undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” A trial court may not merely “rubber stamp” a magistrate‘s decision. Knauer v. Keener, 143 Ohio App.3d 789, 793, 758 N.E.2d 1234 (2d Dist.2001). A reviewing court will presume that the trial court conducted an independent review of the magistrate‘s decision unless the appellant affirmatively shows that the trial court failed to conduct an independent analysis. Rokakis v. W. Res. Leasing Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95058, 2011-Ohio-1926, ¶ 18, citing McCarty v. Hayner, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 08CA8, 2009-Ohio-4540, ¶ 18. Further, the mere fact that the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision does not show that the court did not exercise its independent judgment. Id.
Brzozowski v. Brzozowski, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101013, 2014-Ohio-4820, ¶ 7.
{¶21} The trial court overruled Sandra‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision and adopted that decision without any exposition. However, that does not show lack of an independent review of the matters to which proper objections were raised. “[T]he trial court is not required to ‘comment or reference’ any portion of the record in undertaking its independent review of the record.” Ernsberger v. Ernsberger, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100675, 2014-Ohio-4470, ¶ 21, citing Pietrantano v. Pietrantano, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-01-002, 2013-Ohio-4330, ¶ 18.
{¶22} It is more likely that Sandra‘s failure to support her arguments with a statement of the evidence made the factual questions she raised easy for the court to overrule.
{¶23} Here, Sandra‘s objections to the magistrate‘s decision took issue with factual determinations. However, Sandra did not provide a transcript or statement of the evidence adduced at the hearing. She offered an insufficient record to raise and support factual issues.
{¶24} “A party objecting to a magistrate‘s decision must support the objections with a transcript of all the evidence relevant to the disputed fact or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.” Mulqueeny v. Mentor Chiropractic Ctr., Inc., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2001-L-034, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1671, *6 (Apr. 12, 2002), citing
{¶25} Here, Sandra claims the magistrate and trial court did not make a proper determination that the money in the Chase account was subject to garnishment. She claims the magistrate and court did not find factors necessary to establish a fraudulent transfer under
{¶26} Sandra also claims the magistrate and trial court made no attempt to determine what portion, if any, belonged to Sandra. The magistrate‘s decision makes clear that through
III. Conclusion
{¶27} The trial court properly ordered the garnishment of funds in an account held in Sandra‘s name but clearly maintained for Daniel with deposited funds belonging to Daniel. The court had jurisdiction and properly determined that the funds belonged to Daniel and were subject to garnishment.
{¶28} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR