Civil Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Carroll County, Ohio Case No. 05CVH24452.
For Plaintiffs-Appellees Attorney Shirley Smith.
For Defendants-Appellants Attorney David Smith.
JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Hon. Cheryl L. Waite.
(¶1} Defendants-appellants, Van Hart, Inc., dba Corner Bar and Richard Hartong, appeal from a Carroll County Common Pleas Court judgment appointing a receiver for a liquor license and bar contents.
(¶2} This case began with a bar fight in 2004, at the Corner Bar. Following a bench trial, plaintiffs-appellees, John and Tommie Kulin, were awarded damages totaling approximately $258, 000, plus interest. The judgment was joint and several against Van Hart, Inc., dba the Corner Bar, Calvin Perrine, and Bud Perrine. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. Kulin v. Van Hart, Inc., 7th Dist. No. 07 CA 850, 2008-Ohio-5050. Hartong is the president of Van Hart, Inc.
(¶3} On October 2, 2009, appellees filed motions for debtor's exams.
(¶4} On February 22, 2010, the trial court issued a writ of execution. Consequently various items in the Corner Bar were tagged and/or confiscated by the county sheriff.
(¶5} On July 27, 2010, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the writ of execution stating that appellees had yet to seize, hall away, store, or sell the tagged property. The trial court did not rule on this motion.
(¶6} On December 29, 2011, appellees filed a motion to appoint a receiver in aid of collection of judgment to take the liquor license and bar property for safekeeping and preparation for sale. The trial court held a hearing on the matter. It ultimately issued an order appointing a receiver for the liquor license and contents of the Corner Bar.
(¶7} Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on March 29, 2012.
(¶8} Initially, we should note that although it does not determine the merits of the claims, an order appointing a receiver is a final, appealable order that affects a substantial right in a special proceeding. Cunningham v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 175 Ohio App.3d 566, 2008-Ohio-218, 888 N.E.2d 453, ¶6.
(¶9} Appellants fail to raise assignments of error. Instead, they raise two "Issues for Review." Those ...