DocketNumber: No. 05 CA 40.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 5886
Judges: EDWARDS, J.
Filed Date: 11/2/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} Appellee Jeffrey Ossman was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On September 15, 2003, appellants filed a complaint against appellee for reimbursement. Subsequently, appellants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to a Journal Entry filed July 14, 2004, the trial court found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and held that appellants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
{¶ 5} Appellee then appealed. Pursuant to an Opinion filed on December 20, 2004, in Heflin v. Ossman, Fairfield App. No. 04CA50,
{¶ 6} Upon remand, the trial court, as memorialized in a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Entry filed on January 19, 2005, awarded $250.00 to appellant Heflin and $4,384.36 to appellant Grange. The amount awarded to Grange represented the claimed damages of $4,743.87, less $359.51 in claimed sales tax.
{¶ 7} On February 9, 2005, appellee filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment. As memorialized in a Journal Entry filed on February 11, 2005, the trial court granted the same.
{¶ 8} Thereafter, on February 11, 2005, appellee Ossman filed a Notice of Appeal of the trial court's January 19, 2005, Judgment Entry. Appellee's appeal was assigned Case No. 05CA17. Via a Journal Entry filed on February 17, 2005, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellee in his appeal in such case, finding that he met the criteria for receiving court-appointed counsel based on his affidavit of indigency.
{¶ 9} On March 11, 2005, appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the trial court, asking that the trial court reconsider its appointment of counsel to represent appellee in his civil appeal. Appellants specifically argued that "[t]his is a simple civil action and there is no basis in law for this defendant to be represented by an attorney paid for out of public funds, . . ." The trial court, as memorialized in a Journal Entry filed on March 22, 2005, overruled appellants' motion. Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on April 20, 2005, challenging the appointment of counsel for appellee. Such appeal was assigned Case No. 05CA40.
{¶ 10} Pursuant to an Opinion filed on December 16, 2005, inHeflin v. Ossman, Fairfield App. No. 05CA17,
{¶ 11} Appellants now appeal from the trial court's March 22, 2005, Journal Entry, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶ 12} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPOINTING COUNSEL TO REPRESENT DEFENDANT TO HIS CIVIL APPEAL."
{¶ 14} However, as is stated above, appellee's civil appeal in Case No. 05CA17 has been decided by this Court pursuant to an Opinion filed on December 16, 2005. For such reason, the issue of whether the trial court erred in appointing counsel to represent appellee in such case is moot.
{¶ 15} Appellants' sole assignment of error is, therefore, dismissed as moot.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Edwards, J. Gwin, P.J. and Farmer, J. concur.