[Cite as Haley v. Nomad Preservation, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4385.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STEPHEN T. HALEY C.A. No. 26220
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE NOMAD PRESERVATION, INC., et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellees CASE No. CV 2010-07-4748
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 26, 2012
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Stephen Haley appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Haley filed a complaint against Nomad Preservation, Inc. and seven named
individuals, alleging thirteen claims arising out of business deals Mr. Haley had with Nomad.
He further moved for an order of attachment of certain motor vehicles held by the defendants.
The trial court granted the motion for attachment. While the case was pending, Mr. Haley filed a
notice of dismissal of six of the seven individual defendants, maintaining his claims against only
Nomad and Hussein El-Haje. Mr. Haley later filed a notice of settlement with Mr. El-Haje.
Subsequently, non-party Hussein Ayache filed a motion for return of property relevant to one of
the motor vehicles (2007 Hummer) identified in the order of attachment. While that motion was 2
pending, the trial court entered judgment on October 29, 2010, in favor of Mr. Haley on his
remaining claims against Nomad in the amount of $1,311,443.88, plus interest.
{¶3} Mr. Haley moved for an order to void all transfers concerning the 2007 Hummer
and to transfer the truck to him as the judgment creditor. The trial court scheduled a hearing on
matters concerning this vehicle and ordered Mr. Haley not to transfer, sell, or otherwise
encumber the Hummer. Mr. Haley subsequently filed a notice that the issue of whether the
truck’s transfer to Mr. Ayache was a bona fide transfer was pending in another case before
another judge in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. On January 14, 2011, the trial
court issued an order directing Mr. Haley to return the 2007 Hummer to Mr. Ayache; post bond
in the amount of $32,000.00, which represented the fair market value of the truck; and pay all
costs associated with the return of the truck to Mr. Ayache. The trial court further ordered
Nomad and Mr. El-Haje to cooperate and assist in the return of the truck to Mr. Ayache.
{¶4} The matters relevant to the instant appeal are as follows. Mr. Ayache filed a
motion for contempt against Mr. Haley, alleging that Mr. Haley had neither posted bond nor
returned the truck to him. Mr. El-Haje filed a motion to vacate the October 29, 2010 judgment,
although no judgment had been rendered against him. He also moved to vacate a September 30,
2010 default judgment against him although he admitted that no such judgment could be found
on the docket. Mr. Haley filed a motion to vacate the January 14, 2011 judgment that directed
him to post a bond and return the 2007 Hummer to Mr. Ayache. The trial court subsequently
assigned the case to a magistrate regarding the pending motions.
{¶5} The magistrate issued a decision which bears a time-stamp date of September 21,
2011. The decision contained the required notice pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) that a party
must file written objections within fourteen days of the filing of the decision. The decision 3
further directed the clerk of courts to serve notice of the decision and its date of entry upon the
journal. The clerk of courts sent a notice to Mr. Haley, indicating that the magistrate’s decision
had been filed on September 22, 2011. Mr. Haley filed written objections to the magistrate’s
decision on October 6, 2011, fourteen days after the clerk asserted the decision had been filed,
but fifteen days after the date of the time-stamp on the decision. The trial court refused to
consider Mr. Haley’s objections because it found that they had not been timely filed. The trial
court merely reviewed the magistrate’s decision for errors on its face. Mr. Haley appealed,
raising five assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[]ED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE[’]S DECISION BY HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FILED THE OBJECTIONS OUTSIDE THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD PROVIDED BY RULE TO OBJECT WHEN IN FACT THE CLERK OF COURTS SERVED NOTICE UPON APPELLANT THAT THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION WAS FILED ON [SEPTEMBER] 22, 2011 AND APPELLANT FILED HIS OBJECTIONS ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER THE STATED DAY THE ORDER[] WAS FILED AS FOUND WITHIN THE CLERK OF COURT’S NOTICE.
{¶6} As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that neither appellee (Mr. El-Haje and
Mr. Ayache) filed an appellee’s brief. Accordingly, this Court may accept Mr. Haley’s statement
of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if Mr. Haley’s brief reasonably
appears to sustain such action. App.R. 18(C); see also Akron v. Carter, 9th Dist. No. 22444,
2005-Ohio-4362, ¶ 3.
{¶7} Mr. Haley argues that the trial court erred by refusing to consider his objections
because he had in fact timely filed them. This Court agrees. 4
{¶8} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) allows a party to file objections to a magistrate’s decision
“within fourteen days of the filing of the decision[.]” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) addresses the form
of the decision and sets out filing and service requirements for decisions: “A magistrate’s
decision shall be in writing, identified as a magistrate’s decision in the caption, signed by the
magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later
than three days after the decision is filed.”
{¶9} The magistrate’s decision bears a time-stamp date of September 21, 2011. The
time-stamp evidences the date of filing and raises a presumption that the document was filed on
that date. See Akron v. Bilder, 9th Dist. No. 14505, 1990 WL 121099 (Aug. 22, 1990). The
presumption may be refuted, however, by evidence that the clerk filed the document on a
different date. Rhoades v. Harris, 135 Ohio App.3d 555, 557 (1st Dist.1999). In this case, the
record contains evidence to rebut the presumption. The clerk of courts’ own notice of filing,
which the clerk sent to all eight parties ever involved in this case, clearly stated that the
magistrate’s decision was “filed” on September 22, 2011. Mr. Haley was entitled to rely on the
clerk’s assertion regarding the date of filing, as the clerk of courts is the entity charged with the
duty of filing, storing, and preserving the record in each case. Presumably, the clerk, better than
anyone else, is in the position to know when a document has been filed.
{¶10} Mr. Haley filed his objections to the magistrate’s decision on October 6, 2011,
within fourteen days of the date the decision was filed. Accordingly, the trial court erred by
refusing to consider his objections as untimely. Mr. Haley’s first assignment of error is
sustained. 5
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Haley v. Nomad Preservation, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4385.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STEPHEN T. HALEY C.A. No. 26220
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE NOMAD PRESERVATION, INC., et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellees CASE No. CV 2010-07-4748
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 26, 2012
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Stephen Haley appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Haley filed a complaint against Nomad Preservation, Inc. and seven named
individuals, alleging thirteen claims arising out of business deals Mr. Haley had with Nomad.
He further moved for an order of attachment of certain motor vehicles held by the defendants.
The trial court granted the motion for attachment. While the case was pending, Mr. Haley filed a
notice of dismissal of six of the seven individual defendants, maintaining his claims against only
Nomad and Hussein El-Haje. Mr. Haley later filed a notice of settlement with Mr. El-Haje.
Subsequently, non-party Hussein Ayache filed a motion for return of property relevant to one of
the motor vehicles (2007 Hummer) identified in the order of attachment. While that motion was 2
pending, the trial court entered judgment on October 29, 2010, in favor of Mr. Haley on his
remaining claims against Nomad in the amount of $1,311,443.88, plus interest.
{¶3} Mr. Haley moved for an order to void all transfers concerning the 2007 Hummer
and to transfer the truck to him as the judgment creditor. The trial court scheduled a hearing on
matters concerning this vehicle and ordered Mr. Haley not to transfer, sell, or otherwise
encumber the Hummer. Mr. Haley subsequently filed a notice that the issue of whether the
truck’s transfer to Mr. Ayache was a bona fide transfer was pending in another case before
another judge in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. On January 14, 2011, the trial
court issued an order directing Mr. Haley to return the 2007 Hummer to Mr. Ayache; post bond
in the amount of $32,000.00, which represented the fair market value of the truck; and pay all
costs associated with the return of the truck to Mr. Ayache. The trial court further ordered
Nomad and Mr. El-Haje to cooperate and assist in the return of the truck to Mr. Ayache.
{¶4} The matters relevant to the instant appeal are as follows. Mr. Ayache filed a
motion for contempt against Mr. Haley, alleging that Mr. Haley had neither posted bond nor
returned the truck to him. Mr. El-Haje filed a motion to vacate the October 29, 2010 judgment,
although no judgment had been rendered against him. He also moved to vacate a September 30,
2010 default judgment against him although he admitted that no such judgment could be found
on the docket. Mr. Haley filed a motion to vacate the January 14, 2011 judgment that directed
him to post a bond and return the 2007 Hummer to Mr. Ayache. The trial court subsequently
assigned the case to a magistrate regarding the pending motions.
{¶5} The magistrate issued a decision which bears a time-stamp date of September 21,
2011. The decision contained the required notice pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) that a party
must file written objections within fourteen days of the filing of the decision. The decision 3
further directed the clerk of courts to serve notice of the decision and its date of entry upon the
journal. The clerk of courts sent a notice to Mr. Haley, indicating that the magistrate’s decision
had been filed on September 22, 2011. Mr. Haley filed written objections to the magistrate’s
decision on October 6, 2011, fourteen days after the clerk asserted the decision had been filed,
but fifteen days after the date of the time-stamp on the decision. The trial court refused to
consider Mr. Haley’s objections because it found that they had not been timely filed. The trial
court merely reviewed the magistrate’s decision for errors on its face. Mr. Haley appealed,
raising five assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[]ED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE[’]S DECISION BY HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FILED THE OBJECTIONS OUTSIDE THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD PROVIDED BY RULE TO OBJECT WHEN IN FACT THE CLERK OF COURTS SERVED NOTICE UPON APPELLANT THAT THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION WAS FILED ON [SEPTEMBER] 22, 2011 AND APPELLANT FILED HIS OBJECTIONS ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER THE STATED DAY THE ORDER[] WAS FILED AS FOUND WITHIN THE CLERK OF COURT’S NOTICE.
{¶6} As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that neither appellee (Mr. El-Haje and
Mr. Ayache) filed an appellee’s brief. Accordingly, this Court may accept Mr. Haley’s statement
of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if Mr. Haley’s brief reasonably
appears to sustain such action. App.R. 18(C); see also Akron v. Carter, 9th Dist. No. 22444,
2005-Ohio-4362, ¶ 3.
{¶7} Mr. Haley argues that the trial court erred by refusing to consider his objections
because he had in fact timely filed them. This Court agrees. 4
{¶8} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) allows a party to file objections to a magistrate’s decision
“within fourteen days of the filing of the decision[.]” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) addresses the form
of the decision and sets out filing and service requirements for decisions: “A magistrate’s
decision shall be in writing, identified as a magistrate’s decision in the caption, signed by the
magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later
than three days after the decision is filed.”
{¶9} The magistrate’s decision bears a time-stamp date of September 21, 2011. The
time-stamp evidences the date of filing and raises a presumption that the document was filed on
that date. See Akron v. Bilder, 9th Dist. No. 14505, 1990 WL 121099 (Aug. 22, 1990). The
presumption may be refuted, however, by evidence that the clerk filed the document on a
different date. Rhoades v. Harris, 135 Ohio App.3d 555, 557 (1st Dist.1999). In this case, the
record contains evidence to rebut the presumption. The clerk of courts’ own notice of filing,
which the clerk sent to all eight parties ever involved in this case, clearly stated that the
magistrate’s decision was “filed” on September 22, 2011. Mr. Haley was entitled to rely on the
clerk’s assertion regarding the date of filing, as the clerk of courts is the entity charged with the
duty of filing, storing, and preserving the record in each case. Presumably, the clerk, better than
anyone else, is in the position to know when a document has been filed.
{¶10} Mr. Haley filed his objections to the magistrate’s decision on October 6, 2011,
within fourteen days of the date the decision was filed. Accordingly, the trial court erred by
refusing to consider his objections as untimely. Mr. Haley’s first assignment of error is
sustained. 5
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[]ED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY CONSIDERING DEFENDANT HUSSEIN EL-HAJE’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE MOTION AND THEN MAKING CERTAIN FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS AT A[N] EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHEN THE COURT HAD PR[E]VIOUSLY STATED EXPLICITLY IN IT[]S JUDGMENT ENTRY FILED OCTOBER 29, 2010 THAT NO JUDGMENT HAD BEEN RENDERED AGAINST EL-HAJE THAT COULD BE VACATED AS EL-HAJE HAD BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY THE COURT ON OCTOBER 29, 2010.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER-JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 60(B) ENTERED AGAINST PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT ON JANUARY 14, 2011 WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH BY DUE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN TIME TO MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[]ED AS A MATTER OF LAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BOTH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY ISSUING A JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,000.00 BY FAILING TO REQUIRE THE INITIATION OF A CIVIL ACTION PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 3(A); IN FAILING TO REQUIRE THE COMMENC[E]MENT OF AN INTERPLEADER COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 22 CONCERNING THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS FOR THE 2007 HUMMER; BY IMPROPERLY PROVIDING A NON-PARTY LEGAL ADVICE TO FILE A MOTION IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT; BY FAILING TO DEFER JURISDICTION TO A CASE WHERE THE NON-PARTY WAS B[E]FORE THE SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ON THE SAME ISSUE; BY FAILING TO DETERMINE LIABILITY OF PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT TO NON-PARTY HUSSEIN AYACHE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, OHIO LAWS AND THE OHIO RULES OF COURT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[]ED AS A MATTER OF LAW, DENYING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BOTH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY COMPEL[L]ING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO DO 6
THE IMPOSSIBLE, RETURNING A VEHICLE NEVER IN HIS POSSESSION OR CONTROL AND THEN TO PAY $32,000 IF THE VEHICLE WAS NOT RETURNED AND THEN FINDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER.
{¶11} Mr. Haley reiterates the arguments he made in his objections to the magistrate’s
decision. Our resolution of the first assignment of error renders his remaining assignments of
error moot and we decline to address them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
III.
{¶12} Mr. Haley’s first assignment of error is sustained. We decline to address the
remaining assignments of error. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is
reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
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 App.R. 27.
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. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 7
Costs taxed to Appellees.
DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT
DICKINSON, J. BELFANCE, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
STEPHEN T. HALEY, pro se, Appellant.
THOMAS PIGOTT, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
HUSSEIN AYACHE, pro se, Appellee.