Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: Contempt of v. Bill Modic D.B.A. Bill's Transmission

October 20, 2011

IN RE: CONTEMPT OF BILL MODIC D.B.A. BILL'S TRANSMISSION IN THE MATTER STYLED: KEVIN MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
BILL MODIC D.B.A. BILL'S TRANSMISSION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2008 CVF 26902

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kathleen Ann Keough, J.

Cite as

In re Contempt of Modic,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

BEFORE: Keough, J., Boyle, P.J., and Rocco, J.

{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow the appellate court to render a brief and conclusory opinion. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158, 463 N.E.2d 655; App.R. 11.1(E).

{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Bill Modic d.b.a. Bill's Transmission ("appellant"), appeals from the trial court's decision finding him in indirect civil contempt for failing to abide by the trial court's stay of execution of the judgment appellant obtained against plaintiff-appellee, Kevin Mitchell ("appellee"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶3} In 2009, following a hearing before a magistrate, appellant obtained a $1,700 judgment against appellee. On October 2, 2009, the same day the magistrate filed his written opinion, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision. On October 7, appellee, acting pro se, filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and a week later, on October 14, filed "[a] notice of appeal and[/]or objections of magistrate's decision"; however, the word "appeal" was crossed out presumedly by the appellee. This "notice" provided that appellee was appealing and or objecting to the magistrate's decision awarding judgment "in favor of [Modic] in the amount of $1,700 and cost [and] also granting transfer of title of the vehicle listed in the original complaint into [Modic's] name." This same day, appellee moved the trial court for an order of stay of execution of judgment pending appeal and or objections to the magistrate's decision. The motion expressly provided that the appellee was requesting a stay of execution of the $1,700 judgment, and also a stay "of the [t]ransfer of title of the 2000 Lincoln LS automobile pending outcome of the appeal." The trial court immediately granted appellee's request for stay.

{¶4} The following day, appellee timely filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which invoked an automatic stay pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(I).*fn1 On December 2, 2009, appellant sought and ultimately obtained title to appellee's vehicle by filing an Unclaimed Motor Vehicle Affidavit.

{¶5} On March 2, 2010, the trial court overruled appellee's objections to the magistrate's decision, rendered appellee's request for stay as moot, and terminated any stay in the case. In April 2010, appellee filed a post-judgment motion to hold appellant in contempt of court, contending that appellant violated the trial court's order of stay by obtaining title to the 2000 Lincoln vehicle.

{¶6} Appellant did not attend the hearing on appellee's motion, and on January 4, 2011, the trial court found appellant in contempt, but offered him an opportunity to purge at a subsequent hearing. A week later, on January 12, appellant filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold him in contempt because no order existed that appellant could have violated. Following a hearing on appellant's motion and considering whether appellant could purge the contempt order, the trial court denied the motion and refused to purge the contempt order against appellant. Appellant now appeals.

{ΒΆ7} We review a finding of contempt under an abuse of discretion standard. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Gibbs (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 573 N.E.2d 62. An "abuse of discretion" connotes that the court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.