Yantos v. Berardo

2024 Ohio 4961, 253 N.E.3d 878

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 15, 2024
• Docket: CA2024-05-028
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Yantos v. Berardo, 2024-Ohio-4961.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

BRITTANY YANTOS, et al., :

Appellees, : CASE NO. CA2024-05-028

: OPINION - vs - 10/15/2024 :

LUIGI BERARDO, et al., :

Appellant. :

CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 07 CV 68694

Kaufman & Florence, and William Robert Kaufman, for appellees.

Gibbs Law Firm, LLC, and Jonathan D. Gibbs, for appellants.

HENDRICKSON, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Luigi Berardo, appeals the entry and order of the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas finding him in contempt for violating prior court orders regarding

the payment of a prior judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part,

reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for the purpose of correcting the total purge

amount appellant is ordered to pay. Warren CA2024-05-028

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} In June 2007, Appellees, Brittany and Andrea Yantos, filed suit against

Berardo for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent

infliction of emotional distress. A jury returned verdicts in favor of Brittany Yantos for

$10,000 and Andrea Yantos for $136,500. In November 2011, Berardo made a payment

of $5,788.84 toward the judgment, after which the matter became dormant.

{¶ 3} On August 26, 2021, the plaintiffs moved to revive the judgment in the

amount of $130,711.16 in favor of Andrea Yantos and $10,000 in favor of Brittany Yantos.

On November 8, 2021, the trial court granted the motion and the judgment totaling

$140,711.16 plus statutory interest was revived.

{¶ 4} Berardo owns two businesses, Luigi's Old World Market, LLC ("LOWM"),

and Luigi's Hospitality, LLC ("LH"). Berardo is the sole member of both LLCs. On January

18, 2022, the trial court issued an order: (1) charging LOWM and LH with payment of the

unpaid balance of the plaintiffs' judgment in the amount of $140,711.16 plus statutory

interest from November 8, 2021; (2) ordering all distributions of cash and other property,

and all allocation of profits, losses, income, gains, deductions, credits, or similar items

that would otherwise be made to Berardo by LOWM and LH to be made instead to the

plaintiffs in reduction of their judgment; and (3) ordering Berardo, in his capacity as sole

member of LOWM and LH, to make no payments to himself on account of his interest in

the companies.

{¶ 5} However, Berardo regularly paid himself $750 per week as an employee of

LH through LH's regular payroll to cover his living expenses. On September 30, 2022,

the plaintiffs filed an "Affidavit, Order and Notice of Garnishment and Answer of Employer"

pursuant to R.C. 2716.02, seeking garnishment of Berardo's personal earnings from LH.

On October 25, 2022, LH filed both an interim report and answer of garnishee and a final

-2- Warren CA2024-05-028

report and answer of garnishee, and subsequently paid garnishments to the plaintiffs.

{¶ 6} On June 1, 2023, Berardo, LOWM, and LH were found in contempt of court

for violating the January 18, 2022 charging order because Berardo made distributions to

himself using company debit/credit cards for personal expenditures. Berardo, LOWM,

and LH were ordered to pay $60,696.79 to the plaintiffs or be sentenced to 14 days in the

Warren County Jail.

{¶ 7} In June of 2023, Berardo sold the assets of LOWM to Kuhlmann's Fine

Meats for a purchase price of $125,000 (the "Kuhlmann Contract"). Berardo received a

down payment of $35,000 for the sale, with the remaining purchase price paid in $2,500

monthly installment payments. Berardo received $5,000 of the down payment in cash

and the remaining $30,000 by check. Berardo received one $2,500 installment from

Kuhlmann's in July 2023, but payments subsequently stopped because Kuhlmann's

discovered that LOWM's liquor license was invalid, when inclusion of the license was a

term of the sale. Using $10,000 from the proceeds of the sale, Berardo made a partial

payment to the plaintiffs in a collection deferral agreement and the June 1, 2023 contempt

order was purged. Berardo also used $4,647.56 to pay LOWM's creditors, but the rest of

the proceeds were unaccounted for.

{¶ 8} From August 22, 2023 through October 29, 2023, LH failed to garnish funds

from Berardo's wages. Although LH issued paychecks to Berardo for that period, Berardo

deliberately chose not to cash them, citing a lack of funds in the business to make payroll

for his other employees. During this time, $5,250 should have been garnished.

{¶ 9} On January 11, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to show cause, seeking to

hold Berardo, LOWM, and LH in contempt, raising three arguments: (1) that LH be held

in contempt for failing to comply with a wage garnishment on Berardo's wages from

August 22, 2023 through October 29, 2023; (2) that Berardo, LH and LOWM be held in

-3- Warren CA2024-05-028

contempt for violating the Court's January 18, 2022 charging order; and (3) that Berardo

and LOWM be held in contempt for entering into a sale of LOWM's assets without paying

Berardo's debt to the plaintiffs out of the profits from that sale.

{¶ 10} A show cause hearing was held before a magistrate on February 29, 2024

and Berardo was the sole witness to testify. On March 4, 2024, the magistrate found

LOWM, LH, and Berardo in contempt for violating the January 18, 2022 charging order

and failing to comply with the garnishment order. The magistrate ordered that Berardo,

in his individual capacity and as sole member of LOWM and LH, be sentenced to serve

30 days in the Warren County Jail. The magistrate further ordered that "the sentence can

be purged upon payment of $25,250 ($5,250 in past wage garnishments, plus the $5,000

cash payment from the Kuhlmann Contract, plus half of the $30,000 down payment under

the Kuhlmann Contract) to Plaintiffs, compliance with this Court's garnishment order, and

compliance with this Court's charging order."

{¶ 11} On March 14, 2024, Berardo, LOWM, and LH collectively filed a motion to

set aside the magistrate's order. On April 17, 2024, the trial court journalized an order

and entry denying the motion to set aside the magistrate's March 4, 2024 order. The trial

court found Berardo, LOWM, and LH in contempt of court, sentenced Berardo to serve

30 days in the Warren County Jail, and ordered that the sentence could be purged upon

payment of $25,250 to the plaintiffs, compliance with the court's garnishment order, and

compliance with the court's charging order.

{¶ 12} On May 17, 2024, Berardo appealed to this court in his individual capacity.

LOWM and LH did not appeal. Berardo raises two assignments of error for our review.

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 1:

-4- Warren CA2024-05-028

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE MAGISTRATE'S MARCH 4, 2024 ORDER FINDING APPELLANTS IN CONTEMPT.

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Berardo raises two issues. We will address

them in order.

{¶ 15} First, Berardo asserts that the uncashed checks he received from LH "do

not constitute 'received' property for garnishment." Berardo argues that he deliberately

chose not to cash his paychecks, intending to keep the funds within the business,

therefore the uncashed checks do not constitute payments subject to garnishment. We

disagree.

{¶ 16} "Property held by a third party is subject to garnishment to satisfy the debts

of a judgment debtor when, at the time of the service of the garnishment order, the

judgment debtor has a right or title to the property. . . . On the other hand, where the

judgment debtor himself has no present right to obtain the money or property from the

garnishee, then the judgment creditor likewise has no right to the property." Liverpool v.

Buckeye Water Dist., 2012-Ohio-2821, ¶ 36, quoting Toledo Trust Co. v. Niedzwiecki, 89

Ohio App.3d 754, 757 (6th Dist.1993). Where an employee is a judgment debtor and the

employer is a garnishee, the property being garnished is, strictly speaking, not the funds

themselves, but the debtor's contractual right to receive them. See Goralsky v. Taylor,

59 Ohio St.3d 197, 198 (1991).

{¶ 17} Berardo cites Zeigler Milling Co. v. Denman, 79 Ohio App. 250 (5th Dist.

1946), for the proposition that "Payment. . . does not take place until the creditor or his

duly authorized agent receives and cashes it," thus because he did not cash his

paycheck, there was no payment that could be garnished. This is incorrect. Zeigler is a

case concerning the admissibility into evidence of a check stub offered as evidence of the

issuance and delivery of a check for payment. It is not applicable to the garnishment of

-5- Warren CA2024-05-028

wages. A debtor, such as Berardo, may not avoid the garnishment of his wages simply

by holding onto and not cashing his paychecks. Berardo testified that he paid himself

$750 per week as an employee of LH through LH's payroll. Regardless of whether LH

had the funds available to pay Berardo his salary or whether payment was effected,

Berardo had a right to receive the funds as an employee of LH. Berardo drew paychecks

from LH's payroll for the labor and services he rendered to LH. Therefore, the plaintiffs

(as Berardo's creditors) had a right to collect a garnishment of those funds from LH.

{¶ 18} Second, Berardo asserts that insufficient evidence exists to prove he

personally received funds from the sale of LOWM. We disagree. Under the Kuhlman

Contract, Berardo received checks for $30,000 and $2,500, made out to Luigi Berardo as

opposed to Luigi's Olde World Market, LLC, as well as $5000 in cash. Berardo's

testimony that the proceeds were used exclusively to settle outstanding debts associated

with LOWM was self-serving—in fact, the exhibits he supplied as evidence of these debts

showed payments totaling only $4,647.56 as of September 2023. Besides this $4,647.56,

and the $10,000 that was paid to the plaintiffs, the rest of the proceeds from the Kuhlman

Contract were unaccounted for. Therefore, the magistrate properly found that Berardo

had received funds from the sale of LOWM while failing to pay the plaintiffs.

{¶ 19} The trial court did not err in denying Berardo's motion to set aside the

magistrate's order. Berardo's first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 2:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE MAGISTRATE TO FIND DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF GARNISHING WAGES UNDER OHIO LAW.

{¶ 21} In his second assignment of error, Berardo argues that Ohio law caps wage

garnishment to no more than 25 percent of disposable earnings, and the magistrate erred

-6- Warren CA2024-05-028

by ordering essentially a 100 percent garnishment of the wages he received—$5,250 in

wages as an employee of LH, and $35,000 from the sale of LOWM. Berardo is correct

with regard to his personal earnings from LH, but incorrect with regard to the proceeds

from the sale of LOWM.

{¶ 22} R.C. 2716.01 defines personal earnings as "money, or any other

consideration or thing of value, that is paid or due to a person in exchange for work, labor,

or personal services provided by the person to an employer." R.C. 2716.02 sets forth

how a person seeking an order of garnishment of personal earnings shall make such a

demand. It is well established that R.C. 2716.02 limits the monthly garnishment amount

to 25 percent of the debtor's personal earnings. See State v. Thompson, 2023-Ohio-

4805, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.); State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-315, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 23} Here, the plaintiffs sought and obtained garnishment of Berardo's personal

earnings from LH pursuant to R.C. 2716.02. Berardo paid himself as an employee of LH

from LH's regular payroll for the work he performed at LH. Thus, the $5,250 in wages

due to Berardo from LH qualify as personal earnings and the monthly garnishment is

capped at 25 percent. Therefore, the trial court should have found that $1,312.50 was

owed to the plaintiffs for unpaid wage garnishments instead of $5,250. However, the

$5,000 cash payment and one-half of the $30,000 downpayment under the Kuhlman

Contract are proceeds from the sale of an asset (LOWM), they are not personal earnings

for services rendered to an employer. Consequently, the payment due to the plaintiffs

from the Kuhlman Contract proceeds is not capped at 25 percent.

{¶ 24} The trial court erred when it calculated the total amount the defendants had

to pay the plaintiffs in order to purge the contempt order by including 100 percent of

Berardo's personal earnings from LH for the period from August 22, 2023 through October

29, 2023. Instead, the total purge amount should be $21,312.50 to reflect the 25 percent

-7- Warren CA2024-05-028

cap on garnishments of personal earnings.

{¶ 25} Berardo's second assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in

part.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 26} The trial court did not err in finding Berardo's uncashed checks from LH

were personal earnings subject to garnishment and did not err in finding that Berardo had

received funds from the sale of LOWM that should have been paid to the plaintiffs.

However, the trial court erred in calculating the total amount Berardo, LOWM, and LH had

to pay to the plaintiffs in order to purge the contempt order when it did not cap the

garnishment of Berardo's personal earnings from LH at 25 percent. Therefore, the total

purge amount should be $21,312.50

{¶ 27} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the purpose

of correcting the total purge amount.

S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

-8-