[Cite as Swaim v. Scott, 2014-Ohio-419.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
JAMES E. SWAIM, et al.
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT SCOTT, et al.
Defendant-Appellee
Appellate Case No. 25726
Trial Court Case No. 2012-CV-348
(Civil Appeal from (Common Pleas Court) ...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 7th day of February, 2014.
...........
CHARLES F. GEIDNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0023889, BRENT E. RAMBO, Atty. Reg. No. 0076969, 15 West Fourth Street, Suite 250, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee Attorneys for Ohio Department of Job and Family Services-Plaintiff-Appellee
THOMAS BAGGOTT, Atty. Reg. No. 1919, 130 West Second Street, Suite 2100, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
WILLIAM SCOTT, 211 South Main Street, Apartment 2, Englewood, Ohio 45322 Defendant-Appellant-Pro Se
............. 2
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, William Scott (Appellant), appeals pro se from the trial
court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, the State of Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). Appellant was ordered by the trial court to
pay ODJFS $23,393.78 as a result of improperly disbursing funds from the Estate of Glenda
Scott, his deceased sister. Appellant argues that he did not receive ODJFS’s motion for
summary judgment, and claims that he would have filed a response had he received proper
notice. Appellant also contends that ODJFS’s complaint was filed outside the statute of
limitations. Furthermore, Appellant requests this court to rule on his motion to vacate, which
the trial court overruled on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the issue of whether Appellant received proper notice of the
motion for summary judgment is not properly before this court, because Appellant did not raise
the issue before the trial court. Appellant also failed to raise the statute of limitations defense
before the trial court and also waived the defense by not including it in his responsive pleading.
Finally, we conclude that this court cannot rule on Appellant’s motion to vacate, as our authority
in this matter is limited to reviewing and affirming, modifying or reversing decisions of the trial
court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed without prejudice to
Appellant’s motion to vacate.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} Appellant was appointed as the administrator of the estate of his deceased sister,
Glenda Scott, in Montgomery County Probate Court Case No. 2009 EST 00056. Prior to that, 3
Appellant’s brother, Robert Scott, was appointed as the administrator of the estate of their other
deceased sister, Peggy Scott, in Montgomery County Probate Court Case No. 2008 EST 00868.
{¶ 4} In July of 2008, Robert filed a complaint against Appellant for concealing assets
of Peggy Scott’s estate. After holding a hearing on the matter, the Montgomery County Probate
Court found Appellant guilty of concealing assets and ordered him to pay a total of $5,477.36 to
the estate. Thereafter, Appellant paid the entire judgment using funds from Glenda Scott’s
estate. In addition, Appellant used Glenda Scott’s estate funds to pay $10,528.12 to Tobias
Funeral Home (Tobias), and $17,916.42 to himself. These disbursements were reported by
Appellant in his Fiduciary’s Account filed on April 14, 2010.
{¶ 5} On January 12, 2012, ODJFS filed a complaint against Appellant in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Appellant failed to notify ODJFS of
the probate proceedings involving the Estate of Glenda Scott. The complaint indicated that such
notification is required under R.C. 2117.061, because Glenda Scott was a Medicaid recipient and
her estate is subject to Medicaid Estate Recovery. In addition, the complaint alleged that ODJFS
is a priority creditor and that Appellant made improper distributions to himself, the Estate of
Peggy Scott, and Keystone America, Inc., which conducts business as Tobias. Peggy Scott’s
estate and Tobias were also named as defendants in the complaint. ODJFS requested a judgment
against Appellant in the amount of $23,393.78 plus interest.
{¶ 6} The complaint and summons were successfully served on Appellant, who filed a
pro se answer. Thereafter, ODJFS filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was
no genuine issue of material fact that Appellant: (1) failed to notify ODJFS of the probate
proceedings; and (2) administered improper distributions from the Estate of Glenda Scott. 4
Appellant was notified of the deadline to respond to the motion for summary judgment, but filed
no memorandum in opposition. On March 26, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of ODJFS and ordered Appellant to pay $23,393.78 plus interest.
{¶ 7} Appellant filed an objection to the trial court’s decision on grounds that it
violated his constitutional right to have a trial on the matter. The trial court overruled the
objection on grounds that its decision was a final appealable order and that the proper course of
action would be to file an appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with this court
on April 22, 2013, which indicated that Appellant was appealing from the trial court’s summary
judgment decision.
{¶ 8} While his appeal was pending, on April 26, 2013, Appellant filed a motion to
vacate the judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 41. The motion requested the trial court to dismiss the
March 26, 2013 judgment against him on grounds that the other two defendants, the Estate of
Peggy Scott and Tobias, were granted a dismissal under Civ.R. 41. He also argued that he did
not receive notice of ODJFS’s motion for summary judgment. On May 14, 2013, the trial court
overruled the motion to vacate on grounds that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter since
Appellant had previously filed an appeal.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} Appellant did not set forth specific assignments of error in his appellate brief as
required by App.R. 16(A)(3). The failure to set forth specific assignments of error is grounds for
dismissal. State v. Peoples, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2005 CA 20, 2006–Ohio–4162, ¶ 24. We note
that the Appellant is proceeding pro se. Nevertheless, “ ‘[l]itigants who choose to proceed pro 5
se are presumed to know the law and correct procedure, and are held to the same standards as
other litigants.’ ” Preston v. Shutway, 2013–Ohio–185, 986 N.E.2d 584, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting
Yocum v. Means, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1576, 2002–Ohio–3803, ¶ 20. (Other citation omitted.)
Despite Appellant’s error, we will review his arguments in the interest of justice.
{¶ 10} Appellant first argues that he did not receive notice of the March 26, 2011
“default judgment” and, therefore, he did not file a response. We note that there was no default
judgment taken against the Appellant. The judgment that Appellant is referring to was awarded
on summary judgment. Accordingly, we construe Appellant’s argument to be that he did not
receive notice of ODJFS’s motion for summary judgment, and that he would have filed a
response to the motion had he been given proper notice.
{¶ 11} Prior to filing this appeal, Appellant filed an objection to the summary judgment
decision, but he did not raise the notice issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Swaim v. Scott, 2014-Ohio-419.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
JAMES E. SWAIM, et al.
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT SCOTT, et al.
Defendant-Appellee
Appellate Case No. 25726
Trial Court Case No. 2012-CV-348
(Civil Appeal from (Common Pleas Court) ...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 7th day of February, 2014.
...........
CHARLES F. GEIDNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0023889, BRENT E. RAMBO, Atty. Reg. No. 0076969, 15 West Fourth Street, Suite 250, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee Attorneys for Ohio Department of Job and Family Services-Plaintiff-Appellee
THOMAS BAGGOTT, Atty. Reg. No. 1919, 130 West Second Street, Suite 2100, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
WILLIAM SCOTT, 211 South Main Street, Apartment 2, Englewood, Ohio 45322 Defendant-Appellant-Pro Se
............. 2
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, William Scott (Appellant), appeals pro se from the trial
court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, the State of Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). Appellant was ordered by the trial court to
pay ODJFS $23,393.78 as a result of improperly disbursing funds from the Estate of Glenda
Scott, his deceased sister. Appellant argues that he did not receive ODJFS’s motion for
summary judgment, and claims that he would have filed a response had he received proper
notice. Appellant also contends that ODJFS’s complaint was filed outside the statute of
limitations. Furthermore, Appellant requests this court to rule on his motion to vacate, which
the trial court overruled on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the issue of whether Appellant received proper notice of the
motion for summary judgment is not properly before this court, because Appellant did not raise
the issue before the trial court. Appellant also failed to raise the statute of limitations defense
before the trial court and also waived the defense by not including it in his responsive pleading.
Finally, we conclude that this court cannot rule on Appellant’s motion to vacate, as our authority
in this matter is limited to reviewing and affirming, modifying or reversing decisions of the trial
court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed without prejudice to
Appellant’s motion to vacate.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} Appellant was appointed as the administrator of the estate of his deceased sister,
Glenda Scott, in Montgomery County Probate Court Case No. 2009 EST 00056. Prior to that, 3
Appellant’s brother, Robert Scott, was appointed as the administrator of the estate of their other
deceased sister, Peggy Scott, in Montgomery County Probate Court Case No. 2008 EST 00868.
{¶ 4} In July of 2008, Robert filed a complaint against Appellant for concealing assets
of Peggy Scott’s estate. After holding a hearing on the matter, the Montgomery County Probate
Court found Appellant guilty of concealing assets and ordered him to pay a total of $5,477.36 to
the estate. Thereafter, Appellant paid the entire judgment using funds from Glenda Scott’s
estate. In addition, Appellant used Glenda Scott’s estate funds to pay $10,528.12 to Tobias
Funeral Home (Tobias), and $17,916.42 to himself. These disbursements were reported by
Appellant in his Fiduciary’s Account filed on April 14, 2010.
{¶ 5} On January 12, 2012, ODJFS filed a complaint against Appellant in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Appellant failed to notify ODJFS of
the probate proceedings involving the Estate of Glenda Scott. The complaint indicated that such
notification is required under R.C. 2117.061, because Glenda Scott was a Medicaid recipient and
her estate is subject to Medicaid Estate Recovery. In addition, the complaint alleged that ODJFS
is a priority creditor and that Appellant made improper distributions to himself, the Estate of
Peggy Scott, and Keystone America, Inc., which conducts business as Tobias. Peggy Scott’s
estate and Tobias were also named as defendants in the complaint. ODJFS requested a judgment
against Appellant in the amount of $23,393.78 plus interest.
{¶ 6} The complaint and summons were successfully served on Appellant, who filed a
pro se answer. Thereafter, ODJFS filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was
no genuine issue of material fact that Appellant: (1) failed to notify ODJFS of the probate
proceedings; and (2) administered improper distributions from the Estate of Glenda Scott. 4
Appellant was notified of the deadline to respond to the motion for summary judgment, but filed
no memorandum in opposition. On March 26, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of ODJFS and ordered Appellant to pay $23,393.78 plus interest.
{¶ 7} Appellant filed an objection to the trial court’s decision on grounds that it
violated his constitutional right to have a trial on the matter. The trial court overruled the
objection on grounds that its decision was a final appealable order and that the proper course of
action would be to file an appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with this court
on April 22, 2013, which indicated that Appellant was appealing from the trial court’s summary
judgment decision.
{¶ 8} While his appeal was pending, on April 26, 2013, Appellant filed a motion to
vacate the judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 41. The motion requested the trial court to dismiss the
March 26, 2013 judgment against him on grounds that the other two defendants, the Estate of
Peggy Scott and Tobias, were granted a dismissal under Civ.R. 41. He also argued that he did
not receive notice of ODJFS’s motion for summary judgment. On May 14, 2013, the trial court
overruled the motion to vacate on grounds that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter since
Appellant had previously filed an appeal.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} Appellant did not set forth specific assignments of error in his appellate brief as
required by App.R. 16(A)(3). The failure to set forth specific assignments of error is grounds for
dismissal. State v. Peoples, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2005 CA 20, 2006–Ohio–4162, ¶ 24. We note
that the Appellant is proceeding pro se. Nevertheless, “ ‘[l]itigants who choose to proceed pro 5
se are presumed to know the law and correct procedure, and are held to the same standards as
other litigants.’ ” Preston v. Shutway, 2013–Ohio–185, 986 N.E.2d 584, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting
Yocum v. Means, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1576, 2002–Ohio–3803, ¶ 20. (Other citation omitted.)
Despite Appellant’s error, we will review his arguments in the interest of justice.
{¶ 10} Appellant first argues that he did not receive notice of the March 26, 2011
“default judgment” and, therefore, he did not file a response. We note that there was no default
judgment taken against the Appellant. The judgment that Appellant is referring to was awarded
on summary judgment. Accordingly, we construe Appellant’s argument to be that he did not
receive notice of ODJFS’s motion for summary judgment, and that he would have filed a
response to the motion had he been given proper notice.
{¶ 11} Prior to filing this appeal, Appellant filed an objection to the summary judgment
decision, but he did not raise the notice issue. “ ‘ “The normal rule is that an appellate court
should not consider questions which have not been properly raised in the trial court and upon
which the trial court has had no opportunity to pass.” ’ ” State v. Clark, 2d Dist. Greene No.
2007-CA-33, 2008-Ohio-1977, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 95, 372 N.E.2d
804 (1978), quoting Gendron v. United States, 295 F.2d 897, 902 (8th Cir.1961). Because he
did not raise the notice issue before the trial court prior to filing this appeal, the issue is not
properly before this court.
{¶ 12} Even if the notice issue was properly before this court, the record does not
indicate that Appellant failed to receive proper notice of the motion for summary judgment. The
record establishes that Appellant’s correct address is 211 S. Main Street, Apt. 2, Englewood,
Ohio. The motion for summary judgment contains a signed certificate of service indicating that 6
the motion was sent to that address. In addition, on March 1, 2013, the trial court sent an entry
to that address which notified Appellant that: (1) ODJFS filed a motion for summary judgment
on February 28, 2013; (2) the motion for summary judgment would be submitted for decision on
March 22, 2013; and (3) the deadline to file a memorandum in opposition would be on March 15,
2013.
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s first argument lacks merit and is
overruled.
{¶ 14} Next, Appellant argues that ODJFS did not file its complaint within the statute of
limitations. Once again, Appellant did not raise this issue before the trial court. Because we
may not consider questions which have not been properly raised in the trial court, the statute of
limitations issue is not properly before this court.
{¶ 15} As a further matter, the statute of limitations defense “must be ‘set forth
affirmatively,’ Civ.R. 8(C), in a pleading responsive to the complaint, that is, in the answer.
Civ.R. 7(A).” Stutes v. Harris, 2d Dist. Greene No. 21753, 2007-Ohio-5163, ¶ 19. The statute
of limitations defense “is waived unless pled in a timely manner.” (Citation omitted.) State ex
rel. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Wortham, 176 Ohio App.3d 611, 2008-Ohio-2873, 893 N.E.2d 209,
¶ 16 citing Lewis v. Trimble, 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207 (1997). Here, the Appellant
waived the statute of limitations defense, because he did not assert it in his responsive pleading.
{¶ 16} For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant’s second argument lacks merit and is
{¶ 17} Finally, Appellant requests that we rule on his motion to vacate and dismiss the
case against him pursuant to Civ.R. 41. Given that the motion is requesting relief from a 7
judgment, we construe it as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion as opposed to a motion under Civ.R. 41.
However, we are not authorized to directly rule on the motion to vacate, because we may only “
‘review and affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment or final order appealed.’ ” State v.
Reynolds, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20484, 2005-Ohio-1934, ¶ 8, citing App.R.12(A)(1)(a).
Furthermore, “[a]n appellate court ‘is without jurisdiction to review a judgment or order that is
not designated in the appellant’s notice of appeal.’ ” State v. Collier, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
20131, 2005-Ohio-119, ¶ 34, quoting Sloan v. Ohio Bd. Of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 123
Ohio App.3d 545, 548, 704 N.E.2d 633 (8th Dist.1997).
{¶ 18} In the case before us, the Appellant did not appeal from the trial court’s decision
on the motion to vacate. Appellant’s Notice of Appeal indicates that he only appealed from the
trial court’s March 26, 2013 decision granting summary judgment in favor of ODJFS.
Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s decision on the motion to
vacate.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 19} Having found no merit to any of the arguments presented by the Appellant, we
hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court without prejudice to Appellant’s motion to vacate.
.............
FAIN and HALL, JJ., concur. 8
Copies mailed to:
Charles F. Geidner Brent E. Rambo Thomas Baggott William Scott Hon. Michael W. Krumholtz