Stark Cty. Treas. v. Rachel

2023 Ohio 99

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: 2022 CA 00026
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Stark Cty. Treas. v. Rachel, 2023-Ohio-99.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STARK COUNTY TREASURER JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- Case No. 2022 CA 00026 DANIEL RACHEL

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2021 CV 01030

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 12, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE L. STONE DANIEL RACHEL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE GERARD T. YOST P. O. Box 43146 ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Orient, Ohio 43146 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00026 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Daniel Rachel, appeals from the February 7, 2022,

Judgment Entry by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is

Treasurer of Stark County. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On May 11, 2021 Appellee filed a complaint for foreclosure for unpaid and

delinquent real estate taxes for Stark County parcel number 16-05347.

{¶3} On May 17, 2021, Appellee perfected service on Appellant.

{¶4} On June 17, 2021, Appellant filed an Answer claiming the indebtedness was

forgiven.

{¶5} On July 20, 2021, this matter proceeded to the Court of Common Pleas for

the judicial foreclosure.

{¶6} On July 29, 2021, Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

{¶7} On August 25, 2021, Appellant filed a Response to Appellee’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

{¶8} On August 27, 2021, Appellee filed a Reply.

{¶9} On February 1, 2022, the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.

{¶10} On February 7, 2022, the trial court issued a decree of foreclosure and order

of sale.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶11} Appellant filed a notice of appeal and herein raises the following four

Assignments of Error: Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00026 3

{¶12} “I. THE LOWER COURT DID NOT RECIEVE [sic] AN ACCURATE

ACCOUNTING OF THE TAX BILLS FOR ANY OF THE YEARS CLAIMED BY THE

PLAINTIFF AND REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. THERE IS A VERY LARGE

DIFFERENCE.

{¶13} “II. THE LOWER COURT DID NOT RECIEVE [sic] AND THE DEFENDANT

DID NOT RECIEVE [sic] ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE $3211.63 DELINQUENT

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LISTED ON THE TAX BILL AND REQUESTED BY THE

DEFENDANT, NOW DEMANDED.

{¶14} “III. THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF SERVICE OR PUBLIC NOTICE

FOR ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE $3211.63 SHOWN ON THE TAX BILL

AND REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, NOW DEMANDED.

{¶15} IV. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN THE

DEFENDANT WAS NOTIFIED [sic] HE STILL OWNED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF

2021 BY THE PLAINTIFF THE DEFENDANT NOTIFIED THE PLAINTIFF THE

PROPERTY WAS INCLUDED IN THE DEFENDANTS [sic] 2005 BANKRUPTCY. THE

DEFENDANT IMMEDIATELY SENT A PAYMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF WITH THE

OFFER TO SURRENDER THE PROPERTY IN LUE [sic] OF FORCLOSURE [sic] THE

PLAINTIFF RESPONDED BY RETURNING THE PAYMENT AND STATING PLAINTIFF

WAS REQUESTING FORCLOSURE [sic] IN THE COURTS [sic]”

I., II., III., IV.

{¶16} Appellant summarily argues the trial court did not receive accurate

information as to the taxes owed, Appellant did not receive proof of service of the tax bill,

and that Appellant sent a payment. Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00026 4

{¶17} Appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error on appeal. See, App.R.

16(A)(7). “It is the duty of the appellant, not this court, to demonstrate his assigned error

through an argument that is supported by citations to legal authority and facts in the

record.” State v. Untied, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2006-0005, 2007-Ohio-1804, ¶141,

quoting State v. Taylor, 9th Dist. Medina No. 2783-M, 1999 WL 61619 (Feb.9, 1999). See,

also, App.R. 16(A)(7).

{¶18} “If an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this

court’s duty to root it out.” State v. Romy, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2020 CA 00066, 2021-Ohio-

501, 168 N.E.3d 86, ¶35, citing Thomas v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 08CA17, 2009-

Ohio-3299, ¶14. Therefore, we may disregard assignments of error Appellant presented

for review since he failed to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of

error is based and any supporting legal authority. App.R. 12(A)(2).

{¶19} Appellants have not supported their general argument with citations to the

record. Furthermore, Appellant’s argument fails to cite statutes, case law, rules of

evidence, rules of civil procedure, or learned treatises, and apply the facts of the case to

the legal authority. Consequently, we find that Appellant has not presented an argument,

but rely only upon the assertion of error, and we thus disregard these assignments of

error. Stark County, Case No. 2022 CA 00026 5

{¶20} Accordingly, Appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth Assignments of Error

are overruled.

{¶21} For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the judgment of the Court of

Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is hereby dismissed.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

Hoffman, J., concur.

JWW/br 0110