[Cite as Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C. v. Hosseinipour, 2021-Ohio-2848.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TAX EASE OHIO, LLC JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 MORTEZA HOSSEINIPOUR
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 17 CV E 01 0041
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 18, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DAVID BRADY MORTEZA HOSSEINIPOUT SUZANNE GOODENSWAGER PRO SE AUSTIN BARNES III 3883 Habitat Drive MARK SCHONHUT Columbus, Ohio 43228 JEFFEREY PANEHAL 1213 Prospect Avenue, Suite 300 Cleveland, Ohio 441115 Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 2
Wise, John, P. J.
{¶1} Appellant Morteza Hosseinipour, appeals from the July 23, 2020 Judgment
Entry by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is Tax Ease Ohio, LLC.
The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On December 8, 2006, Appellant and Ellysse Yuan, purchased property
located at 4625 Seldom Seen Road in Delaware County, Ohio (“disputed property”) for
investment purposes.
{¶3} On July 9, 2007, Rekha Kanna agreed to buy Ellysse Yuan’s interest in the
disputed property. Kanna’s understanding of the agreement was that she would be
responsible only for an initial investment of $55,000. Appellant believed that Kanna was
also responsible for one half of all expenditures made by Appellant, and when the
disputed property sold, they would split the proceeds one half to Appellant and one half
to Kanna.
{¶4} On October 2, 2012, Kanna filed a civil suit against Appellant for fraud.
{¶5} On October 1, 2014, the trial court found no fraud occurred, that a fifty-fifty
partnership existed, that both Kanna and Appellant are responsible for one half of the
expenses paid by Appellant, and upon sale, the proceeds shall be paid in this priority:
court costs, cost of sale, accrued real estate taxes, one half of all expenses Appellant
paid since July 9, 2007, related to the disputed property, and the excess split one half to
Appellant and one half to Kanna. Kanna v. Hosseinipour, Del. Co. Ct. of Com. Pl., 12 C
H 10 1165 (October 1, 2014).
{¶6} On January 7, 2020, the disputed property was sold at auction. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 3
{¶7} On March 3, 2020, the trial court ordered all interested parties should file
notices of claims for remaining excess funds of $59,401.72.
{¶8} On June 1, 2020, Kanna filed her notice for one half of the remaining excess
funds.
{¶9} On June 16, 2020, Appellant filed notice claiming $38,050.44 for
reimbursement of expenses plus one-half share of the remaining excess funds.
{¶10} On June 17, 2020, Appellee filed notice claim $885.10 of accrued interest
from the remaining excess funds.
{¶11} On June 26, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding that the
remaining excess funds are subject to the 2014 judgment entry that the proceeds shall
be paid in the following order:
1. Court costs.
2. Cost of sale.
3. Accrued real estate taxes.
4. To [Appellant], ½ of all expenses over and above the expenses
itemized in Exhibit 3 incurred after July 9, 2007. Said expenses shall have
been paid for upkeep and renovations to the 4625 Seldom Seen Road
property and evidenced by cancelled checks made payable to supplier
and/or signed receipts and/or paid invoices. The evidence must establish
the sums were for renovations to the said property. (Each party is
responsible for ½ of all expenses except those addressed in paragraph 6
above which are the obligation of the Defendant.)
5. The balance of the sales proceeds shall be split equally 50/50. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 4
Kanna v. Hosseinipour, Del. Co. Ct. of Com. Pl., 12 C H 10 1165 (October
1, 2014).
{¶12} On July 14, 2020, Kanna filed a Memorandum Contra to Defendant’s Notice
of Claim to Access Surplus Funds claiming Appellant’s submitted expenses did not
comply with the 2014 judgment entry.
{¶13} On July 15, 2020, Appellant replied asking the trial court to allow any
contested funds be determined by a magistrate alleging Appellant could refute Kanna’s
claims.
{¶14} On July 23, 2020, the trial court issued a final judgment entry order the
remaining excess funds to be dispersed for $885.10 to Appellee, with the rest to be split
one half to Appellant and one half to Kanna.
{¶15} On August 19, 2020, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
{¶16} Appellant filed a series of Motions for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.
{¶17} This Court granted Appellant’s Motions.
{¶18} On March 3, 2020, Appellant filed his Merit Brief.
{¶19} On October 22, 2020, this Court granted Appellant’s Motion.
{¶20} On March 8, 2021, Appellant filed his Merit Brief. No transcripts were
requested and no transcripts were filed.
{¶21} Kanna was granted two filing extensions, but did not file a brief.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶22} Appellant raised the following Assignment of Error:
{¶23} “I. THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY REMAINING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 5
COULD JUSTIFY RE-OPENING THE PREVIOUS ACTION. THE LOWER COURT
ALSO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT DID NOT
PRESENT PROOF THAT HIS ALLEGED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES WERE
DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE RENOVATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS
A RESULT OF THESE UNREASONABLE AND/OR ARBITRARY DECISIONS, THE
LOWER COURT DISALLOWED APPELLANT FROM RECEIVING ANY BENEFIT FOR
PRIOR EXPENSES HE HAS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUBJECT
PROPERTY. THE COURT WRONGFULLY ALLOWED EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF
EXCESS FUNDS BETWEEN THE TWO CO-OWNERS.”
I.
{¶24} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court
erred by finding Appellant did not present proof of expenditures directly connected with
the renovation of the disputed property and did not provide Appellant an opportunity to
explain the proof before ordering excess funds should be split between Appellant and
Kanna. We disagree.
{¶25} The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence lies in a trial court’s sound
discretion. State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, 972 N.E.2d 528; State
v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987). In order to find an abuse of that
discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5
Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶26} The trial court issued a Notice to Assert Claim to Excess Funds asking all
interested parties to submit their claim to the funds from the sale of the disputed property. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 6
{¶27} In response to the trial court’s Notice to Assert Claim to Excess Funds,
Kanna filed a Notice of Claim seeking the trial court to split the excess funds of $59,
401.72, evenly between Appellant and Kanna.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C. v. Hosseinipour, 2021-Ohio-2848.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TAX EASE OHIO, LLC JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 MORTEZA HOSSEINIPOUR
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 17 CV E 01 0041
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 18, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DAVID BRADY MORTEZA HOSSEINIPOUT SUZANNE GOODENSWAGER PRO SE AUSTIN BARNES III 3883 Habitat Drive MARK SCHONHUT Columbus, Ohio 43228 JEFFEREY PANEHAL 1213 Prospect Avenue, Suite 300 Cleveland, Ohio 441115 Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 2
Wise, John, P. J.
{¶1} Appellant Morteza Hosseinipour, appeals from the July 23, 2020 Judgment
Entry by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is Tax Ease Ohio, LLC.
The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On December 8, 2006, Appellant and Ellysse Yuan, purchased property
located at 4625 Seldom Seen Road in Delaware County, Ohio (“disputed property”) for
investment purposes.
{¶3} On July 9, 2007, Rekha Kanna agreed to buy Ellysse Yuan’s interest in the
disputed property. Kanna’s understanding of the agreement was that she would be
responsible only for an initial investment of $55,000. Appellant believed that Kanna was
also responsible for one half of all expenditures made by Appellant, and when the
disputed property sold, they would split the proceeds one half to Appellant and one half
to Kanna.
{¶4} On October 2, 2012, Kanna filed a civil suit against Appellant for fraud.
{¶5} On October 1, 2014, the trial court found no fraud occurred, that a fifty-fifty
partnership existed, that both Kanna and Appellant are responsible for one half of the
expenses paid by Appellant, and upon sale, the proceeds shall be paid in this priority:
court costs, cost of sale, accrued real estate taxes, one half of all expenses Appellant
paid since July 9, 2007, related to the disputed property, and the excess split one half to
Appellant and one half to Kanna. Kanna v. Hosseinipour, Del. Co. Ct. of Com. Pl., 12 C
H 10 1165 (October 1, 2014).
{¶6} On January 7, 2020, the disputed property was sold at auction. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 3
{¶7} On March 3, 2020, the trial court ordered all interested parties should file
notices of claims for remaining excess funds of $59,401.72.
{¶8} On June 1, 2020, Kanna filed her notice for one half of the remaining excess
funds.
{¶9} On June 16, 2020, Appellant filed notice claiming $38,050.44 for
reimbursement of expenses plus one-half share of the remaining excess funds.
{¶10} On June 17, 2020, Appellee filed notice claim $885.10 of accrued interest
from the remaining excess funds.
{¶11} On June 26, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding that the
remaining excess funds are subject to the 2014 judgment entry that the proceeds shall
be paid in the following order:
1. Court costs.
2. Cost of sale.
3. Accrued real estate taxes.
4. To [Appellant], ½ of all expenses over and above the expenses
itemized in Exhibit 3 incurred after July 9, 2007. Said expenses shall have
been paid for upkeep and renovations to the 4625 Seldom Seen Road
property and evidenced by cancelled checks made payable to supplier
and/or signed receipts and/or paid invoices. The evidence must establish
the sums were for renovations to the said property. (Each party is
responsible for ½ of all expenses except those addressed in paragraph 6
above which are the obligation of the Defendant.)
5. The balance of the sales proceeds shall be split equally 50/50. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 4
Kanna v. Hosseinipour, Del. Co. Ct. of Com. Pl., 12 C H 10 1165 (October
1, 2014).
{¶12} On July 14, 2020, Kanna filed a Memorandum Contra to Defendant’s Notice
of Claim to Access Surplus Funds claiming Appellant’s submitted expenses did not
comply with the 2014 judgment entry.
{¶13} On July 15, 2020, Appellant replied asking the trial court to allow any
contested funds be determined by a magistrate alleging Appellant could refute Kanna’s
claims.
{¶14} On July 23, 2020, the trial court issued a final judgment entry order the
remaining excess funds to be dispersed for $885.10 to Appellee, with the rest to be split
one half to Appellant and one half to Kanna.
{¶15} On August 19, 2020, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
{¶16} Appellant filed a series of Motions for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.
{¶17} This Court granted Appellant’s Motions.
{¶18} On March 3, 2020, Appellant filed his Merit Brief.
{¶19} On October 22, 2020, this Court granted Appellant’s Motion.
{¶20} On March 8, 2021, Appellant filed his Merit Brief. No transcripts were
requested and no transcripts were filed.
{¶21} Kanna was granted two filing extensions, but did not file a brief.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶22} Appellant raised the following Assignment of Error:
{¶23} “I. THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY REMAINING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 5
COULD JUSTIFY RE-OPENING THE PREVIOUS ACTION. THE LOWER COURT
ALSO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT DID NOT
PRESENT PROOF THAT HIS ALLEGED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES WERE
DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE RENOVATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS
A RESULT OF THESE UNREASONABLE AND/OR ARBITRARY DECISIONS, THE
LOWER COURT DISALLOWED APPELLANT FROM RECEIVING ANY BENEFIT FOR
PRIOR EXPENSES HE HAS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUBJECT
PROPERTY. THE COURT WRONGFULLY ALLOWED EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF
EXCESS FUNDS BETWEEN THE TWO CO-OWNERS.”
I.
{¶24} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court
erred by finding Appellant did not present proof of expenditures directly connected with
the renovation of the disputed property and did not provide Appellant an opportunity to
explain the proof before ordering excess funds should be split between Appellant and
Kanna. We disagree.
{¶25} The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence lies in a trial court’s sound
discretion. State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012-Ohio-2407, 972 N.E.2d 528; State
v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987). In order to find an abuse of that
discretion, we must determine the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5
Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶26} The trial court issued a Notice to Assert Claim to Excess Funds asking all
interested parties to submit their claim to the funds from the sale of the disputed property. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 6
{¶27} In response to the trial court’s Notice to Assert Claim to Excess Funds,
Kanna filed a Notice of Claim seeking the trial court to split the excess funds of $59,
401.72, evenly between Appellant and Kanna.
{¶28} Appellant then filed a Notice of Claim to Access Surplus funds seeking the
amount of $38,050.44. The support for this amount Appellant submitted the following
proof of expenditures: sixty pages of invoices for Del-Co. Water Co. bills for the disputed
property without evidence of payment; eight pages of invoices from AEP Ohio without
evidence of payment; seven checks either ultimately cashed by Hosseinipour himself or
without evidence that the check was for expenses related to renovations of the disputed
property; ten real estate tax invoices, three invoices for air compressors and a sod cutter
shipped to a different property owned by Appellant and without evidence they were for
the disputed property; two invoices from Anderson Concrete Corp. listing the job site as
a different property; an invoice from HHS Electric without evidence of payment; a Lowe’s
invoice for a cabinet dated prior to July 9, 2007; and Home Depot and Lowe’s receipts
with no evidence the materials were used at the property.
{¶29} The trial court’s judgment entry limited the expenses Appellant could
recover for those expenses incurred after July 9, 2007, related to upkeep and
renovations of the disputed property, and evidenced by cancelled checks made payable
to a supplier, a signed receipt, and/or paid invoices. The expenses claimed by Appellant
were not in accordance with the trial court’s judgment entry dated June 26, 2020. As
such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Appellant’s proposed
expenses splitting the remaining proceeds one half to Appellant and one half to Kanna. Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAE 08 0032 7
{¶30} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶31} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, John, P. J.
Delaney, J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/br 0816