State v. Moore , 2021 Ohio 1616 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Moore, 2021-Ohio-1616.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HURON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. H-20-014
H-20-015
Appellee
Trial Court No. CRI 2001-0757
v.
Jeffrey E. Moore DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: May 7, 2021
*****
James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Jacob J. Stephens, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Jeffrey E. Moore, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This pro se, consolidated appeal is before the court from the July 20, 2020
Huron County Court of Common Pleas’ judgments reviving two dormant judgments
against defendant-appellant, Jeffrey E. Moore, for fines and court costs in the amounts of
$10,956.88 and $63. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Following a guilty plea, appellant was convicted of drug possession, a first-
degree felony. The trial court’s December 19, 2001 sentencing judgment entry, which
was affirmed by this court, included a mandatory $10,000 fine and court costs. See State
v. Moore, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-02-001, 2002-Ohio-4476.
{¶ 3} Appellant again appealed to this court following the denial of his
postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On June 6, 2008, we affirmed the trial
court’s judgment. See State v. Moore, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-07-033, 2008-Ohio-2735.
{¶ 4} On June 29, 2020, the state filed two motions for revivor of the separate
monetary judgments issued on December 19, 2001, in trial court case No. CRI 2001-
0757, and June 6, 2008, in appeals court case No. H-07-033. The motions requested that
a non-oral hearing be scheduled for July 16, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. Appellant opposed the
motions arguing that revivor of the dormant judgments was barred by the statute of
limitations under R.C. 2329.07 and 2325.18(A).
{¶ 5} On July 20, 2020, the trial court granted each of the state’s motions in
separate judgment entries. Appellant commenced separate appeals which were
consolidated by this court and presents two assignments of error for our review:
Assignment of Error One: The trial court committed prejudice error
and lack subject matter jurisdiction to grant the state of Ohio motion to
revive the trial court dormant judgment entries of DEC. 19 2001 and JUNE
6 2008 R.C. 2325.15, when the statute of limitation bar the state of Ohio
motion to revive the trial court dormant judgment entries of DEC.19 2001
2.
and JUNE 6 2008 pursuant to Ohio law R.C.2535.18 in violation of the
defendant united states constitutional rights amendment 14. (sic)
Assignment of Error Two: The trial court committed prejudice error
when the court fail to conduct a hearing upon the state of Ohio motion to
revive the trial court dormant judgment entry of DEC.19 2001, JUNE 6
2008 to give the defendant an opportunity to challenge the trial court action
to grant the state motion to revive the court dormant judgment in violation
of the defendant united states constitutional rights amendment 14. (sic)
{¶ 6} In appellant’s first assignment of error he argues that the state’s motions for
revivor were barred by the dormant judgment limitations period set forth in R.C. 2329.07
which provides, in relevant part:
(B)(1) A judgment that is not in favor of the state is dormant and
shall not operate as a lien against the estate of the judgment debtor unless
one of the following occurs within five years from the date of the judgment
or any renewal of the judgment, whichever is later:
(a) An execution on a judgment is issued.
(b) A certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and
tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04
of the Revised Code.
3.
(c) An order of garnishment is issued or is continuing, or until the
last garnishment payment is received by the clerk of courts or the final
report is filed by the garnishee, whichever is later.
(d) A proceeding in aid of execution is commenced or is continuing.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (D) of this section, a
judgment in favor of the state, is dormant and shall not operate as a lien
against the estate of the judgment debtor unless one of the following occurs
within ten years from the date of the judgment, or any renewal of the
judgment, or within fifteen years from the date of the issuance of the last
execution thereon, whichever is later:
(a) An execution on the judgment is issued.
(b) A certificate of judgment is issued and filed, as provided in
sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code.
(c) An order of garnishment is issued or is continuing, or until the
last garnishment payment is received by the clerk of courts or the final
report and answer is filed by the garnishee, whichever is later.
(d) A proceeding in aid of execution is commenced or is continuing.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2329.07(B).
{¶ 7} The revivor of a dormant judgment is provided for in R.C. 2325.15:
When a judgment, including judgments rendered by a judge of a
county court or mayor, a transcript of which has been filed in the court of
4.
common pleas for execution, is dormant, * * * such judgment may be
revived, or such finding made subject to execution as judgments at law are,
in the manner prescribed for reviving actions before judgment, or by action
in the court in which such judgment was rendered or finding made, or in
which transcript of judgment was filed.
{¶ 8} R.C.2325.18(A) provides the following time limits for when a judgment can
be revived:
(A) An action to revive a judgment can only be brought within ten
years from the time it became dormant, unless the party entitled to bring
that action, at the time the judgment became dormant, was within the age of
minority, of unsound mind, or imprisoned, in which cases the action may
be brought within ten years after the disability is removed.
{¶ 9} Reviewing the relevant statutes and the timeline of the events, we find that
the state’s June 29, 2020 revivor motions were timely as the state had 20 years from the
date of the issuance of the judgments from which to revive them. Thus, as to the
December 19, 2001 judgment, the state had until December 19, 2021, and as to the
June 6, 2008 judgment, until June 6, 2028. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not
well-taken.
{¶ 10} In appellant’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
erred when it granted the state’s revivor motions without first conducting a hearing as
required under R.C. 2325.17. This section provides:
5.
If sufficient cause is not shown to the contrary, the judgment or
finding mentioned in section 2325.15 of the Revised Code shall stand
revived, and thereafter may be made to operate as a lien upon the lands and
tenements of each judgment debtor for the amount which the court finds to
be due and unsatisfied thereon to the same extent and in the same manner
as judgments or findings rendered in any other action.
{¶ 11} Ohio courts have interpreted this section as requiring that
“the judgment debtor be granted an opportunity to show cause why
the judgment should not be revived, which could only be done at a hearing
before the court.” Leroy Jenkins Evangelistic Assn., Inc. v. Equities
Diversified, Inc., 64 Ohio App.3d 82, 88, 580 N.E.2d 812 (10th Dist.1989).
“Although an action to revive a judgment and a show cause hearing may be
summary in nature, such an opportunity must be granted to meet
fundamental requirements of due process.” Id.Manitou Americas, Inc. v. Woolum, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-05-103, 2019-Ohio-
2674, ¶ 15. The show cause hearing “may amount to a non-oral hearing to allow the
judgment debtor to submit evidentiary materials.” Larney v. Vlahos, 11th Dist. Trumbull
No. 2015-T-0103, 2016-Ohio-1371, ¶ 15, quoting Rindfleisch v. AFT, Inc., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 84551, 84897, 84917, 2005-Ohio-191, ¶ 12.
{¶ 12} In the present matter, appellant was provided with notice and an
opportunity to show cause why the judgments should not be revived. In fact, he did file
6.
an objection and argued the issue of timeliness. Thus, appellant was provided with due
process and the trial court did not err when it failed to conduct a full hearing on the
motions. Appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 13} On consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice was done the
party complaining and the judgments of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas are
affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.
Judgments 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
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
_______________________________
Myron C. Duhart, 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/.
7.