STATES RESOURCES CORP., Appellee v. CARY V. HENDY, Appellant
C.A. No. 25423
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
April 20, 2011
[Cite as States Resources Corp. v. Hendy, 2011-Ohio-1900.]
MOORE, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV 2009-04-2676
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Cary V. Hendy, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 2004, Cary V. Hendy, a banker at National City, entered into a business relationship with Anne Zaytzeff. Hendy wanted to acquire additional real estate investments. Zaytzeff owned a building located at 771 North Howard in Akron, Ohio. Hendy co-managed the building with Zaytzeff and decided to purchase the property around 2005. On September 26, 2007, Hendy executed a cognovit promissory note, secured by real estate, in favor of Ameribank. Around December 2008, Ameribank was taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC“). Following negotiations between States Resources Corp. and the FDIC as the receiver for Ameribank, the promissory note executed by Hendy was purchased by States Resources.
{¶4} On April 6, 2009, States Resources filed a complaint on a cognovit promissory note, and an answer was filed by Hendy admitting all liability. On that same day, a cognovit judgment was rendered in favor of States Resources and against Hendy in the amount of $83,215.09, plus attorney fees, interest and costs.
{¶5} On April 23, 2009, States Resources began proceedings in aid of execution. On May 6, 2009, Hendy filed a motion for relief from judgment and a motion for leave to file an answer instanter. In these motions he alleged fraud on behalf of States Resources in seeking and obtaining the cognovit judgment against Hendy. On June 17, 2009, the court granted relief to Hendy, vacating the cognovit judgment. On that same day, Hendy filed an answer denying all liability other than his monthly obligations pursuant to the promissory note.
{¶6} On July 24, 2009, States Resources filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion on September 17, 2009. A bench trial was held between November 24, 2009, and December 17, 2009. On January 20, 2010, a judgment was awarded in favor of States Resources and against Hendy in the amount of $80,762.21 plus accrued interest of $10,074.48, late charges of $196.05 and attorney fees and costs. A hearing was scheduled with respect to legal fees and on May 12, 2010, the court awarded States Resources $17,750.00 in attorney fees and costs.
{¶7} Hendy timely filed a notice of appeal. He raises three assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT‘S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶8} Hendy contends that the trial court‘s judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We do not agree.
{¶9} In Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291, 2007-Ohio-4918, at ¶3, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the civil standard of review for manifest weight challenges: “When applying a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should affirm a trial court when the trial court‘s decision is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.)
{¶10} The record indicates that on September 26, 2007, Hendy executed a cognovit promissory note, secured by real estate, in favor of Ameribank. The promissory note included an acceleration clause. On the same date, Hendy also executed an agreement to provide insurance. A mortgage securing repayment of the promissory note, also executed on this date, required Hendy to keep the real estate taxes current. Hendy testified that payments were made to Ameribank electronically via “Automated Clearing House,” or ACH. Hendy testified that the last payment that was applied to the loan was during November 2008. He further testified that he deposited money into his business bank account each month to cover the necessary expenses for the business property, including the promissory note, insurance, and taxes.
{¶11} Around December 2008, Ameribank was taken over by the FDIC. Melissa Duncan, an account officer at States Resources, testified that States Resources is the holder of the promissory note executed by Hendy. She testified to negotiations between States Resources
{¶12} Around January 2009, Hendy noticed that the payments for the promissory note had not been withdrawn from his bank account. He decided to investigate and found that Ameribank was “in the process of being liquidated.” The parties concede that on February 20, 2009, States Resources sent an introductory letter to Hendy informing him that it had purchased the loan from the FDIC and that all future payments should be forwarded to States Resources. Hendy subsequently contacted States Resources to negotiate a reduction in the principal. The parties were unable to reach an agreement during these negotiations. Specifically, Hendy would not provide the requested financial information to States Resources. Hendy confirmed that he received an email from States Resources with a copy of the promissory note that had been endorsed to it by the FDIC.
{¶13} Duncan further testified that States Resources had not received any funds from Hendy. In addition, she testified that the taxes on the property were not current and that States Resources had received notice that the insurance on the property had been cancelled. At trial, Duncan testified that the outstanding principal balance was $80,726.21, the accrued interest was $10,074.38, and there were late charges totaling $196.05.
{¶14} The trial court reviewed the documents submitted at trial, considered the testimony of the witnesses and was in the best position to make credibility determinations. Eberhart v. Paintiff, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0002-M, 2005-Ohio-4255, at ¶13, quoting State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. It granted judgment in favor of States Resources and against Hendy. From the evidence in the record, we conclude that the
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING THE ADMISSION OF HEARSAY.”
{¶15} Hendy contends that the trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence. Specifically, Hendy takes issue with the fact that Duncan testified regarding the promissory note, the payments on the note, telephone calls and emails exchanged with Hendy, and Summit County records, of which she had no personal knowledge.
{¶16} Generally, this Court reviews a trial court‘s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roberts, 156 Ohio App.3d 352, 2004-Ohio-962, at ¶14. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[w]hen a court‘s judgment is based on an [arguably] erroneous interpretation of the law, an abuse-of-discretion standard is not appropriate.” Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496, at ¶13. “Whether evidence is admissible because it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule is a question of law, thus, our review is de novo.” (Italics sic.) Monroe v. Steen, 9th Dist. No. 24342, 2009-Ohio-5163, at ¶11, citing State v. Denny, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0051, 2009-Ohio-3925, at ¶4.
{¶17} Duncan testified that Hendy was not current in his tax obligations for the property securing the promissory note. States Resources submitted a certified copy of Hendy‘s tax statement issued by Summit County. Hendy objected to the testimony as well as to the admission of the document. Counsel for States Resources correctly advised the court that the court could at least take judicial notice of the certified document. The court allowed the admission of the exhibit.
{¶18}
{¶19} During trial, Hendy did not argue that the certified copies were inaccurate or unreliable. Instead, he argued that Duncan was not the proper party to testify regarding the documents. The court sustained the objection and did not allow Duncan to testify regarding the document. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court took proper judicial notice that Hendy was not current in his tax obligations. This fact is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is capable of accurate and ready determination by reference to the certified copy from the Summit County Auditor‘s website, a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned given its status as an official source of government information.
{¶20} “Public records and government documents are generally considered ‘not to be subject to reasonable dispute.’ This includes public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet.” (Internal citation omitted.) U.S. ex rel. Dingle v. BioPort Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2003), 270 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 aff‘d sub nom. Dingle v. Bioport Corp. (6th Cir. 2004), 388 F.3d 209. See also, Grimes v. Navigant Consulting, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2002), 185 F.Supp.2d 906, 913 (taking judicial notice of stock prices posted on a website); Cali v. E. Coast Aviation Servs., Ltd. (E.D.N.Y. 2001), 178 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (taking judicial notice of documents from Pennsylvania state agencies and Federal Aviation Administration); Segle v. PNC Mtge. (Mar. 25,2011), W.D. Washington No. 10-5655RJB, at *2 (taking judicial notice of a notice of sale and deed because they were recorded with the auditor and appear on the county‘s website). As a result, the delinquency of Hendy‘s tax obligations was subject to judicial notice under
{¶21} Duncan further testified regarding the States Resources file associated with Hendy. She testified that she is an account officer with the company and that she familiarized herself with the entire file relating to Hendy‘s promissory note.
{¶22} Hendy contends that Duncan was not permitted to testify concerning the files because she had no personal conversations with Hendy. ”
{¶23} Hendy‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES TO [STATES RESOURCES], AND [STATES RESOURCES] SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE AMOUNT THAT IT WAS AWARDED.”
{¶24} Hendy contends that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees, or in the alternative that the court erred in the amount that was awarded. We do not agree.
{¶25} “A trial court‘s determination in regards to an award of attorney fees will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Jarvis v. Stone, 9th Dist. No. 23904, 2008-Ohio-3313, at ¶33, quoting Crow v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 9th Dist. No. 21128, 2003-Ohio-1293, at ¶38. The phrase “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court‘s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{¶26} Hendy first argues that the trial court should not have awarded attorney fees because Hendy “did not default under” the promissory note. Based on our disposition of the first assignment of error, this argument has no merit because the trial court properly found Hendy in default. The trial court awarded attorney fees under an express provision of the note that authorized such an award. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that such provisions are enforceable. See Nottingdale Homeowners’ Ass‘n., Inc. v. Darby (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 32, at the syllabus.
{¶27} Hendy further argues that the award of attorney fees was too high. The trial court conducted a hearing on the award of attorney fees. It considered the factors set forth in
{¶28} Hendy also argues that the trial court erred in permitting States Resources to present the fee bill, identified as Exhibit A, because it had not been produced in response to discovery requests. However, the record indicates that the trial court allowed Hendy additional time to review the documents and defend against the exhibits.
{¶29} Hendy fails to demonstrate that the trial court‘s award for attorney fees was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 219. Thus, his third assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶30} Hendy‘s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS C. LOEPP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ROSEMARY TAFT MILBY, and MATTHEW G. BURG, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.