Emergency Physicians Ins. Co. RRG v. Emergency Physicians Ins. Exchange ( 2018 )

[Cite as Emergency Physicians Ins. Co. RRG v. Emergency Physicians Ins. Exchange, 2018-Ohio-566.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS C.A. No. 28747
INSURANCE COMPANY RRG, et al.
Appellants
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
v. ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al. CASE No. CV-2017-05-1896
Appellees
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: February 14, 2018
TEODOSIO, Judge.
{¶1} Emergency Physicians Insurance Company, RRG (“Emergency Physicians”),
appeals the order of garnishment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on a foreign
judgment granted in favor of Summa Emergency Associates, Inc. (“Summa”) against Emergency
Physicians. We affirm.
I.
{¶2} In May 2017, Summa filed a foreign judgment in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas on a judgment obtained on March 22, 2017, in the Second Judicial District Court
of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe. The Nevada judgment was a confirmation of an
arbitration award originally issued in October 2013. On June 22, 2017, the trial court granted
Summa’s motion for a full faith and credit order, and granted judgment in favor of Summa and
against Emergency Physicians as set forth by the Nevada judgment. The trial court issued an
2
order and notice of garnishment to U.S. Bank on June 27, 2017, and Emergency Physicians
subsequently filed a motion to stay execution pending a hearing on its objection to the
garnishment. On July 26, 2017, the trial court overruled Emergency Physicians’ objections,
denied a stay of execution, and released the funds deposited by U.S. Bank with the Clerk of
Courts. Emergency Physicians now appeals, raising one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING AUTHORITY FOR THE
APPELLEE TO LEVY ON PROPERTY IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN
WHAT APPELLEE WAS OWED.
{¶3} Emergency Physicians argues the trial court erred when it ordered the garnishee to
turn over monies representing interest on the award prejudgment. We disagree.
{¶4} This Court reviews questions of law under a de novo standard. State v. Trifari,
9th Dist. Medina No. 08CA0043-M, 2009-Ohio-667, ¶ 12. Ohio’s Uniform Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments Act, R.C. 2329.021 through 2329.027, sets forth this state’s obligations under
the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. “The doctrine of full faith and
credit requires that the state of Ohio give to these acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
another state the same faith and credit ‘as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State *
* * from which they are taken.’” Holzemer v. Urbanski, 86 Ohio St.3d 129, 132 (1999). A
foreign judgment is subject to collateral attack in Ohio only if there was no subject matter or
personal jurisdiction to render the judgment under the law of the foreign state. Litsinger Sign
Co. v. American Sign Co., 11 Ohio St.2d 1 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The Ohio
Second District Court of Appeals has further addressed the doctrine of full faith and credit as it
applies to foreign judgments:
3
When applied to judicial determinations, the full faith and credit clause means
that a valid judgment issued in one state must be recognized -- without examining
the underlying merits of the action -- by all other states. In Fauntleroy v. Lum
(1908), 210 U.S. 230, 52 L. Ed. 1039, 28 S. Ct. 641, the United States Supreme
Court held that as long as the first court had proper jurisdiction, the second court
must recognize the judgment even if the first court misapplied the law or even
made a clearly erroneous decision. See, also, S.23: Ohio Enacts an Enforcement
of Foreign Judgments Law (1983), 9 Univ. of Dayton L.R. 391.
Thus, full faith and credit means that Ohio courts must recognize the
judgments of the courts of other states and enforce those judgments even if clearly
erroneous on the merits or even where the law of Ohio would produce a different
outcome.
(Emphasis sic.) DLM Joint Venture v. Mershon's World of Cars, 2d Dist. Clark No. 94-CA-95,
1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 14, *3-4.
{¶5} In the case before us for review, both the judgment from the trial court below and
the judgment from the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada use the same language, in
pertinent part:
[Emergency Physicians] shall pay to [Summa] one-half of [Summa’s]equity
balance, $230,000.00 in ten equal installments of $23,000 per year in 2013 and
each year thereafter until final payment is made on or before December 31, 2022.
No interest shall accrue on the amount of an installment until it is due.
The garnishment order provides:
The total probable amount now due on this judgment is $102,150.00.
(The total probable amount due includes the unpaid portion of the judgment in
favor of the Judgment Creditor, which is $92,000, interest on that judgment and,
if applicable, prejudgment interest at the rate of 5.25% per annum payable until
that judgment is satisfied in full; and court costs in the amount of $500.00.)
The language of the garnishment order therefore indicates that the amount due consists of (1)
$92,000.00 of the unpaid judgment; (2) interest, and potentially prejudgment interest in the
amount of $9,650.00; and (3) $500.00 in court costs. The record before this Court provides us
with no indication of how the trial court arrived at any of these amounts as contained in its order
of garnishment.
4
{¶6} Emergency Physicians does not argue that the rate of interest applied by the trial
court is incorrect, or that the amount of the unpaid portion of the judgment is inaccurate; rather,
their argument concerns the date upon which interest begins to accrue. Emergency Physicians
contends that payment on any of the installments did not become due until the date of the
confirmation of the arbitration award—March 22, 2017, and not upon any earlier dates
referenced in the judgment.
{¶7} Although there may be merit to Emergency Physicians’ argument that it should
not have been required to make payment upon the arbitration award until the date it was affirmed
by the judgment of the Nevada court, it is the role of neither this Court nor the trial court below
to examine the merits of the judgment. The judgment from the Second Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada provides that no interest shall accrue on the amount of an installment until it
is due. The language of the judgment further indicates that each installment of $23,000.00 is due
by December 31 of each year, for ten years, beginning in 2013 and ending in 2022. As the trial
court must give full faith and credit to the judgment, it did not have discretion to modify the
judgment. We stress again, neither this Court nor the trial court is positioned to question the
wisdom or the merits of the judgment.
{¶8} We further note that the record before us contains no indication as to how the trial
court arrived at the amounts specified in the order of garnishment. Although Emergency
Physicians provides us with a theory of the calculation used by the trial court, there is nothing in
the record to compare or verify. It is well-settled that an appellant has the responsibility of
providing this Court with a record of facts, testimony, and evidentiary matters necessary to
support an assignment of error. Volodkevich v. Volodkevich, 48 Ohio App.3d 313, 314 (9th
Dist.1989). Specifically, it is an appellant’s duty to transmit the transcript of proceedings.
5
App.R. 10(A); Loc.R. 5(A). When portions of the transcript which are necessary to resolve an
assignment of error are not included in the record on appeal, the reviewing court has “no choice
but to presume the validity of the [trial] court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards
Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). Without a record on this issue for our review, this
Court is unable to determine whether the trial court erred, and we must presume validity.
{¶9} Emergency Physicians’ assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶10} Emergency Physicians’ assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
6
Costs taxed to Appellant.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, P. J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL J. MORAN and AARON A. RIDENBAUGH, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
JASON M. WEIGAND, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.