from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
R. Merry and Beth M. Miller, for plaintiff-appellee.
A. Ettayem, pro se.
PRO TUNC 
1} Defendant-appellant, Ashraf Ettayem, appeals a
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that
aided plaintiff-appellee, The Huntington National Bank
("Huntington"), in the execution of a judgment
against Ettayem. Ettayem also challenges the trial
court's ruling that he admitted the matters contained
within Huntington's requests for admissions when he
failed to timely respond to those requests. For the following
reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment
aiding in the execution of a prior judgment. Because the
trial court lacked the jurisdiction necessary to enter the
judgment deeming the discovery requests admitted, we conclude
that that judgment is void and a nullity.
2} On January 27, 2012, Huntington filed suit
against Bywood, Inc. and Ettayem. In its complaint,
Huntington alleged that it had extended to Bywood a business
credit line loan and a business overdraft protection loan,
and that Bywood had breached the terms of the contracts
governing those loans. Additionally, Huntington alleged that
Ettayem had executed and delivered to Huntington a guaranty
covering both loans. Huntington sought judgment against
Bywood and Ettayem for the amounts due on both loans.
3} Ultimately, the trial court granted Huntington
summary judgment on its claims. In a judgment dated November
20, 2012, the trial court awarded Huntington damages in the
amount of $56, 537.96, plus interest, late fees, and charges.
Bywood and Huntington appealed the November 30, 2012 judgment
to this court, and we affirmed it. Huntington Natl. Bank
v. Bywood, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-994,
2013-Ohio-2780, ¶ 1, 11.
4} Huntington conducted debtor examinations of
Ettayem on March 14, 2014 and May 1, 2015. During those
examinations, Ettayem testified regarding The Limited
Investment Group Corp. ("Limited"), a business that
Ettayem incorporated in 2003. Ettayem explained that he
served as Limited's president and chief executive
officer. Limited employed no other officers and had no
5} According to Ettayem, he owned 100 percent of the
stock that Limited issued. Although a stock certificate for
Ettayem's Limited shares existed, Ettayem did not have
physical possession of it. To Ettayem's knowledge, the
stock certificate was located in the business office of a
commercial building that Limited had previously owned on
Central Avenue. However, that building had been sold in July
2012 by a receiver appointed by the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas. Prior to the sale, the receiver had inspected
the Central Avenue building's business office, but he did
not find any Limited stock certificates.
6} Huntington used the information it had collected
regarding Ettayem's ownership of Limited stock to file an
ex parte motion in aid of execution of its November 20, 2012
judgment. Specifically, Huntington moved the trial court to
(1) prohibit Ettayem from transferring, selling, or pledging
his shares of stock in Limited and (2) issue a replacement
stock certificate for Ettayem's Limited shares and turn
that certificate over to the Franklin County Sheriff for levy
and sale. The trial court granted Huntington's motion in
a judgment entered April 8, 2016.
7} When Huntington sought the trial court's aid
in execution of its judgment, Huntington raised with the
trial court the parties' ongoing controversy over
discovery. In December 2016, Huntington served upon Ettayem
interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for the
production of documents. Ettayem objected to the discovery
requests and moved to strike them. The trial court denied
Ettayem's objections and motion to strike in an entry
dated February 11, 2016. Ettayem appealed that denial by
filing a timely notice of appeal. Despite the pendency of the
appeal, Huntington asked the trial court to enter ...