Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Smith , 2020 Ohio 5042 ( 2020 )

[Cite as Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5042.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
Tidewater Financial Company t/a Court of Appeals No. L-19-1181
Tidewater Motor Credit and Tidewater
Credit Services Trial Court No. CV-16-10786
Appellee
v.
Robert D. Smith DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 23, 2020
*****
Suzana Krasnicki, for appellee.
Robert D. Smith, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Robert D. Smith, pro se, appeals the July 24, 2019
judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court, Housing Division, which found appellee
Tidewater Financial Company’s objections to the magistrate’s decision well-taken and
reinstated appellant’s wage garnishment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellee, Tidewater Financial Company (Tidewater), commenced this
action on account on July 25, 2016, for sums owed by appellant on the December 12,
2012 contract for the purchase of a motor vehicle. The amount alleged to be owed was
$7,658.58 plus 15.95 per cent interest per annum from May 23, 2016. The contract and
repossession documents were attached to the complaint. On November 23, 2016,
Tidewater was granted a default judgment. A wage garnishment notice was sent to
appellant’s employer; the monthly amount was subsequently reduced by half following a
showing of financial hardship.
{¶ 3} The May 30, 2019 affidavit of the balance due on the garnishment order
showed an outstanding balance of $2,288.42. Following a hearing at appellant’s request
on June 14, 2019, the magistrate ordered that the garnishment be released.
{¶ 4} On June 27, 2019, Tidewater filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.
Tidewater disputed the finding that the amount due on the garnishment order had been
paid in full and attached supporting documentation. On July 24, 2019, the trial court
reversed the magistrate’s decision and reinstated the garnishment order. This appeal
followed with appellant raising the following assignment of error:
The trial court errored [sic] by not taking into account the total
garnishment amount of Robert Smith’s checks, from 2-17, until 2-19, with
garnishments totaling over $9,000.00, which included interest.
2.
{¶ 5} In appellant’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the court erred in
reversing the magistrate’s decision because the balance had been paid in full and his
garnishment was properly released. Tidewater claims that appellant’s calculations failed
to factor the interest that was accruing even as the payments were being made.
{¶ 6} In accordance with Civ.R. 53, when reviewing objections to a magistrate’s
decision, the trial court must conduct an independent, de novo, review of the facts and
conclusions contained in the magistrate’s report and enter its own judgment. Perrucci v.
Whittington, 2018-Ohio-2968, 118 N.E.3d 311, ¶ 110 (2d Dist.). On appeal, we review
the court’s decision overruling or sustaining objections to the magistrate’s decision for an
abuse of discretion. Thompson Thrift Constr. v. Lynn, 2017-Ohio-530, 85 N.E.3d 249, ¶
56 (5th Dist.). A court abuses its discretion where its judgment is arbitrary unreasonable,
or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140(1983).
{¶ 7} Although sympathetic to appellant’s financial circumstances, after
consideration of the record we find that the materials presented to the court evidence that
the parties agreed to an interest rate of 15.95 per cent per annum, and that the interest
would continue to accrue at said rate until the balance was paid in full. Thus, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion when it reinstated the wage garnishment order.
Appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
3.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, the July 24, 2019 judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court,
Housing Division, is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the
costs of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
4.