Hampton v. Prince Hall Hous.
This text of 2011 Ohio 6035 (Hampton v. Prince Hall Hous.) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Hampton v. Prince Hall Hous., 2011-Ohio-6035.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
DELLA HAMPTON, : APPEAL NO. C-110188 TRIAL NO. A-9800522 Plaintiff-Appellant, : O P I N I O N. vs. :
PRINCE HALL HOUSING, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 23, 2011
A. Brian McIntsoh, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
SYLVIA S. HENDON, Judge.
{¶1} In 1998, plaintiff-appellant Della Hampton filed suit against Prince
Hall Housing after she was injured in a fall on Prince Hall’s property.1 Hampton
obtained a default judgment against Prince Hall in the amount of $75,000. In 2002,
Hampton had not yet collected her judgment, and she assigned her interest in the
default judgment to “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce,” an entity/group in Colorado.
She filed a copy of the assignment with the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts.
{¶2} In November of 2010, Hampton filed with the trial court, in the same
numbered case as the original action against Prince Hall Housing, a motion to set
aside the assignment of judgment that she had made to “Warren, Edwards, and
Bryce,” but the motion listed Prince Hall Housing as the defendant. Prince Hall
made no appearance in the trial court, and it did not respond to Hampton’s motion.
The trial court denied Hampton’s motion to set aside the assignment, and this appeal
ensued.
{¶3} In this appeal, Hampton has likewise named Prince Hall Housing as
the defendant-appellee. Prince Hall Housing has made no appearance and has not
filed an appellate brief.
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
{¶4} Because “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce” was not named as a party and
was not served with notice of this action, the trial court never acquired personal
jurisdiction over “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce.”
1 Prince Hall Housing’s name also appears as Price Hall Housing in the record. For clarity, we will refer to the party throughout this opinion as Prince Hall Housing.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} Under Civ.R. 17(A), all actions must be brought in the names of the
real parties in interest. A real party in interest is one who “is directly benefited or
injured by the outcome of the case.” Dater v. Charles H. Dater Found., Inc., 166
Ohio App.3d 839, 2006-Ohio-2479, 853 N.E.2d 699, ¶9. In this case, Hampton
sought to set aside an assignment that she had made to “Warren, Edwards, and
Bryce.” Consequently, the real parties in interest in the present controversy are
Hampton and “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce.” “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce” was
not named as a party in Hampton’s motion to set aside the assignment, and it was
never served with notice of the motion. Rather, Hampton named Prince Hall
Housing, a party with absolutely no interest in the assignment, as the defendant in
her motion. “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce” has made no appearance and has filed no
response in this action. The record indicates that Hampton has made no effort to
properly bring a lawsuit against “Warren, Edwards, and Bryce,” either by filing a
separate original action or by properly joining them in the lawsuit originally filed
against Prince Hall Housing.
{¶6} Because Hampton failed to name and serve the real party in interest,
we have, in essence, a lawsuit with only one party. See St. Clair v. Person, 1st Dist.
No. C-010094, 2002-Ohio-1129. Since there was no opposing party over which the
trial court could have properly acquired personal jurisdiction, the trial court should
have dismissed Hampton’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction over “Warren,
Edwards, and Bryce.” Id. Consequently, we reverse the judgment entered by the
trial court and remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the
action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
DINKELACKER, P.J., and HILDEBRANDT, J., concur.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Please Note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 Ohio 6035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-prince-hall-hous-ohioctapp-2011.