DocketNumber: No. L-07-1056.
Citation Numbers: 2007 Ohio 5996
Judges: HANDWORK, J.
Filed Date: 11/9/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} I. The trial court erred by finding that appellee complied with R.C. 5447.13 when it filed an uncertified document captioned as a praecipe.
{¶ 3} II. The trial court erred by failing to address the noncompliance with the Fair Debt and Collections Practices Act.
{¶ 4} On September 29, 2006, the State of Ohio, Department of Taxation, sought a judgment against appellant pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} Appellant moved to vacate the prior judgment based upon defenses of lack of due process, subject matter jurisdiction, and fraud. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant then sought an appeal to this court.
{¶ 6} Our standard of review of an appeal from the denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is whether the trial court abused its discretion. State exrel. Russo v. Deters,
{¶ 7} On appeal, appellant asserts in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by holding that the filing of an uncertified document label as a "Precipe" met the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} "(C) After an assessment becomes final, if any portion of the assessment remains unpaid, including accrued interest, a certified copy of the tax commissioner's entry making the assessment final may be filed in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the employer's, taxpayer's, or qualifying entity's place of business is located or the county in which the party assessed resides. * * *.
{¶ 10} "Immediately upon the filing of the entry, the clerk shall enter a judgment against the party assessed in the amount shown on the entry. * * * Execution shall issue *Page 4 upon the judgment upon the request of the tax commissioner, and all laws applicable to sales on execution shall apply to sales made under the judgment."
{¶ 11} We agree with the trial court that the document filed was sufficient because it certified that a final assessment had been made against appellant. It was not necessary that the original certified document be filed. A copy was sufficient. Therefore, appellant's first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 12} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by not addressing appellant's argument that the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") applied to this case. Appellant asserts that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case because appellant invoked the provisions of this Act (
{¶ 13} We disagree. The FDCPA governs the collection of consumer debts, which are defined at
{¶ 14} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to appellant, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
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.
Peter M. Handwork, J., Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J., William J. Skow, J., Concur. *Page 1