Martin v. Taylor , 2024 Ohio 3207 ( 2024 )

[Cite as Martin v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-3207.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NOBLE COUNTY
TRAMAINE E. MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JASON TAYLOR ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Case No. 24 NO 0514
Application for Reconsideration
BEFORE:
Katelyn Dickey, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.
JUDGMENT:
Denied.
Tramaine E. Martin, Plaintiff-Appellant and
Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Atty. Salvatore P. Messina, Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Litigation Unit, for Defendants-
Appellees (No Response Filed).
Dated: August 21, 2024
–2–
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} On August 9, 2024, Appellant, Tramaine E. Martin, filed a pro se application
requesting that this court reconsider our decision in Martin v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-2871(7th Dist.), in which we affirmed the judgment of the Noble County Court of Common
Pleas granting Appellees’, Jason Taylor and Jay Forshey, motion for summary judgment
and denying his motion for summary judgment. On appeal, we found Appellant’s $1,400
economic impact payment (“EIP”) under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”)
is not exempt from garnishment to pay court costs. Appellant contends this court’s
decision was in error and that we should, therefore, reconsider the opinion pursuant to
App.R. 26(A).
App.R. 26, which provides for the filing of an application for
reconsideration in this court, includes no guidelines to be used in the
determination of whether a decision is to be reconsidered and
changed. Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143, 450 N.E.2d 278(10th Dist.1981). The test generally applied is whether the motion for
reconsideration calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its
decision or raises an issue for our consideration that was either not at all or
was not fully considered by us when it should have been. Id. An application
for reconsideration is not designed for use in instances where a party simply
disagrees with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate
court. State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th
Dist.1996). Rather, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may
prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court
makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the
law. Id.D.G. v. M.G.G., 2019-Ohio-1190, ¶ 2 (7th Dist.).
{¶2} In his application, Appellant contends this court created a “‘conflict
preemption’” in pitting his position against Appellees’ and claims we “never considered
Congress’s clear objective to make the ARPA exempt to court-cost obligations[.]”
Case No. 24 NO 0514
–3–
(8/9/2024 Appellant’s Application for Reconsideration, p. 1, 3). Thus, Appellant believes
“this Court ought to reconsider its decision and reverse on grounds that the ARPA, itself,
exempted the funds misappropriated from Appellant’s trust account.” (Id. at p. 3).
{¶3} Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the record establishes this court did not
make any obvious errors or render a decision that is not supported by the law.
{¶4} In Martin, we stated the following:
COVID-related economic relief payments were authorized by the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (“CARES Act”),
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”), and ARPA. Congress
enacted these statutes in part to provide economic relief during the COVID-
19 pandemic via direct payments to eligible Americans. Congress directed
the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the CARES Act to make a $1,200
refundable tax credit (EIP1) available to all eligible individuals in the United
States. The CAA then provided for an additional $600 payment (EIP2).
Congress authorized a third round of payments pursuant to ARPA for
$1,400 (EIP3). Before issuing any federal income tax refunds, the Secretary
of the Treasury is required to offset against the refund any debts a taxpayer
may owe to another federal agency. See Prance v. United States, 2023 WL
6799101, *1 (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims Oct. 13, 2023).
...
Appellant claims the only question that remains is whether the
$1,400 EIP qualified as an earned income credit that was fully exempt from
garnishment to pay court costs.
Although Appellant believes the trial court misconstrued ARPA, he
instead relies on the CARES Act and the CAA arguing that the EIP3
stimulus check is exempt from garnishment. However, the CARES Act, the
CAA, and ARPA are separate laws with differing language. ARPA funds are
collectible by lenders whereas CARES Act and CAA funds are mainly
protected from garnishments.
Case No. 24 NO 0514
–4–
ARPA, unlike the CAA, does not exempt stimulus payments from
garnishments for court-ordered fines and restitution. Under § 272(d)(2)(A)
of the CAA, “no applicable payment shall be subject to execution, levy,
attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” Under § 272(d)(2)(E)(v),
a “garnishment order” is defined as a “writ, order, notice, summons,
judgment, levy, or similar written instruction issued by a court, a State, or
State agency.” On the contrary, ARPA only provided protections against
reduction or offset for past-due federal taxes, unpaid child support, debts
owed to federal agencies, past-due State income tax obligations, and
unemployment compensation debts. 117 Pub. L. 2, § 9601, 135 Stat. 4, 143
(2021).
Coleman v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., 2023 WL 8596140, *2 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 12, 2023); see also Kellar v. Inch, 2021 WL
4876147, *3 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Florida July 6, 2021) (“the rules regarding
protections of ($1,400) EIP3 are governed by the ARP(A), which provides
protection against only reduction or offset of past-due Federal taxes, unpaid
child support, debts owed to Federal agencies, past-due State income tax
obligations, and unemployment compensation debts”); Treadwell v.
Mnuchin, 2021 WL 1734338, *3 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio May 3, 2021) (Like
the CAA, CARES Act checks are mainly protected from garnishments under
Ohio law).
In this case, the $1,400 stimulus check was issued as part of ARPA,
not the CARES Act or the CAA. See Martin, 2023-Ohio-1021, at ¶ 7 (7th
Dist.); Stimulus Payment Amounts and Qualification – Tax Guide,
https://www.1040.com/tax-guide/coronavirus-pandemic-news-and-
resources/stimulus-payment-amounts-and-qualification (accessed May 22,
2024). Thus, Appellant’s EIP3 payment under ARPA is not exempt from
garnishment to pay court costs. Coleman at *2; Kellar at *3.
Case No. 24 NO 0514
–5–
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Appellees’ motion
for summary judgment and denying Appellant’s motion for summary
judgment.
Martin, 2024-Ohio-2871, at ¶ 2, 9-12.
{¶5} Upon consideration of the App.R. 26(A) application filed in the present
matter, it is apparent that Appellant has not demonstrated any obvious errors or raised
any issues that were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion. This court is not
persuaded that we erred as a matter of law.
{¶6} An application for reconsideration is not designed to be used in situations
wherein a party simply disagrees with the logic employed or the conclusions reached by
an appellate court. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d at 336. App.R. 26(A) is meant to provide a
mechanism by which a party may prevent a miscarriage of justice that could arise when
an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders a decision that is not supported by
the law. Id. Appellant has made no such demonstration.
{¶7} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s pro se application for reconsideration
is hereby denied.
JUDGE KATELYN DICKEY
JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE
JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.
Case No. 24 NO 0514