Columbus Investment Group v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2002)

CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 31, 2002
DocketNos. 02AP-271 and 02AP-418 (REGULAR CALENDAR)
StatusUnpublished

This text of Columbus Investment Group v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2002) (Columbus Investment Group v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbus Investment Group v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2002), (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

DECISION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Audrey Harmon, appeals from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which entered default judgment against appellant and awarded $39,372.25 in damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Columbus Investment Group, Inc. ("Columbus Investment").

{¶ 2} The underlying facts are as follows. On February 21, 2001, Columbus Investment initiated a complaint for forcible entry and detainer. The complaint alleged that Linda Maynard, who is not a party to this appeal, was unlawfully occupying residential property owned by Columbus Investment. According to the complaint, Maynard had been living at the property pursuant to the terms of a lease with option to purchase, but she had defaulted on the terms of the agreement.

{¶ 3} The complaint also alleged that Maynard had attempted to file a grantee statement with the Franklin County Auditor, which falsely represented that Maynard had paid $68,000 in cash to purchase the property from Columbus Investment. The complaint further alleged that appellant and another defendant, Tammy Shannon, had signed their names as witnesses to a fraudulent general warranty deed as part of a scheme to unlawfully transfer ownership of the property from Columbus Investment to appellant. Columbus Investment conceded, however, that, to the best of its knowledge, this alleged fraudulent deed had not been recorded.

{¶ 4} By its prayer for relief, Columbus Investment requested compensatory and punitive damages against Maynard and the witnesses "as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent actions." It also requested an injunction to enjoin Maynard and the witnesses from damaging, destroying or causing harm to the property before Maynard's ejection and a declaration that appellant and Shannon "are guilty of participation in and furthering of the fraudulent schemes and actions of Defendant Maynard[.]"

{¶ 5} The record demonstrates that appellant was served via certified mail on February 28, 2001, although appellant maintains that she did not receive a copy of the complaint. In any event, appellant did not answer or otherwise defend in the action. Tammy Shannon, the other witness to the alleged fraudulent deed, apparently also did not defend in the action and, on April 11, 2001, the trial court entered default judgment against appellant and Shannon. By its judgment, the trial court deemed all averments in the complaint as true with regard to appellant and Shannon, and it granted judgment, jointly and severally, against appellant and Shannon "on the issue of liability" and "on Plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages."

{¶ 6} On January 31, 2002, the trial court held a damages hearing with regard to the default judgment against appellant and Shannon. Columbus Investment offered evidence concerning (1) the costs to clean up and repair the property after Maynard had vacated ($1,370.17); (2) the final utility bill ($120.63); and (3) mortgage payments on the property in February, March, April and May 2001 ($2,523.20). Columbus Investment also asked for attorney fees in the amount of $35,358.25, which represented the entire amount of attorney fees invoiced in this case, and for punitive damages based upon appellant's liability for fraud.

{¶ 7} With regard to attorney fees, Columbus Investment offered the expert testimony of Kevin Humphreys, an attorney, who opined that the recording of a false deed would complicate an action for forcible entry and detainer. When asked whether $35,358.25 was a reasonable fee in light of the litigation, Humphreys testified as follows:

{¶ 8} "I reviewed Plaintiff's (invoice for attorney fees and costs) and the itemizations and the detail provided therein, in addition to the pleading material that was filed in this matter, and including other attachments and exhibits to those pleadings, and there's nothing that I have seen within the itemizations that would that to me doesn't comport with the litigation that actually took place in this matter." (Tr. at 23.)

{¶ 9} Upon cross-examination, Humphreys admitted that he had never prosecuted a forcible entry and detainer action that resulted in even half the attorney fees sought in this case. He also admitted that he had made no effort to apportion the fees between the various defendants.

{¶ 10} By judgment rendered on February 5, 2002, the trial court awarded damages to Columbus Investment in the amount of $39,372.25, the entire amount requested at the hearing. The trial court denied Columbus Investment's claims for punitive and/or exemplary damages.

{¶ 11} On April 18, 2002, appellant filed a petition for bankruptcy protection. In re Harmon (Bankr.Ct.Oh. 2002), No. 02-54990. By order dated June 25, 2002, and, pursuant to agreement of the parties, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay "in order to allow a certain appeal in the case of Columbus Investment Group, Inc. v. Linda P. Maynard, et al., Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 01CVH02-1752, Appeal No. 01APW03-0271, to go forward and be heard in order to liquidate and fix the claims of the parties." We therefore address this appeal, notwithstanding the pending petition for bankruptcy protection.

{¶ 12} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignments of error:

{¶ 13} "First Assignment of Error

{¶ 14} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying a Civ.R. 60(b) motion to overturn a judgment filed by defendant-appellant on the basis that an appeal of the damages entry had been filed and therefore divested the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the Civ.R. 60(b) motion.

{¶ 15} "Second Assignment of Error

{¶ 16} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting the full amount of plaintiff's prayer for damages of $39,372.25 in an action for fraud in connection with the execution of a deed for real property when the itemized charges for damages evidenced are not adequately substantiated as is necessary and proper under Ohio Civil Rule 55(a).

{¶ 17} "Third Assignment of Error

{¶ 18} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting the full amount of plaintiff's prayer for damages in an action for fraud in connection with the execution of a deed for real property when the itemized charges for damages are not associated with defendant's alleged fraudulent activity.

{¶ 19} "Fourth Assignment of Error

{¶ 20} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting compensatory damages which include attorney's fees when its order specifically denies punitive and exemplary damages."

{¶ 21} By her first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion. We disagree.

{¶ 22} Appellant filed an amended Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside judgment on March 6, 2002. While her motion was pending, appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 15, 2002. The Ohio Supreme Court has expressly stated that "an appeal divests trial courts of jurisdiction to consider Civ.R. 60(B) motions for relief from judgment." Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 147. In light of this authority, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's first assignment of error is therefore overruled.

{¶ 23} By her second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by granting $39,372.25 in damages because the itemized charges for damages were not substantiated in accordance with Civ.R. 55(A).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Egner v. Egner
493 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)
Ferritto v. Olde Co., Inc.
577 N.E.2d 101 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)
Czarnecki v. Basta
679 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
Blakemore v. Blakemore
450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)
Howard v. Catholic Social Services of Cuyahoga County, Inc.
70 Ohio St. 3d 141 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)
Roberts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
665 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Columbus Investment Group v. Maynard, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-investment-group-v-maynard-unpublished-decision-10-31-2002-ohioctapp-2002.