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.

State v. Shuster

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

December 11, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION Appellee
v.
KAREN SHUSTER Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 12CJ060250

          KAREN SHUSTER, pro se, Appellant.

          MICHAEL D. STULTZ and KARL C. KERSCHNER, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JULIE A. SCHAFER, Presiding Judge.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Karen Shuster, appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying her motions to strike and to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         I.

         {¶2} On July 30, 2012, the Ohio Department of Taxation filed a certificate of judgment against Shuster for unpaid income taxes for tax year 2003, which had become final by operation of law for the purpose of having a judgment lien recorded thereon. On February 16, 2017, the Department of Taxation filed a motion for garnishment of personal earnings. Shuster did not request a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2716.06. However, on February 28, 2017, Shuster filed a "Motion to strike and Dismiss this Case under Rule 12(B)" and "Defendant's Objection to ex-parte Filings and Motion to Strike." The Department of Taxation filed a response on March 20, 2017. The trial court subsequently denied Shuster's motions.

          {¶3} Shuster filed this timely appeal, raising one assignment of error for our review.

         II.

         Assignment of Error

         The lower court erred in denying [Shuster]'s Motion to Dismiss and allowing judgment in favor of [The Ohio Department of Taxation].

         {¶4} In her sole assignment of error, Shuster argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss and allowing judgment in favor of the Department of Taxation. We disagree.

         {¶5} In her motion to strike and dismiss, Shuster argued that she had "never received proper service of process in this case" and was "not even liable for any state, city or county income or employment taxes." In denying Shuster's motion to strike and dismiss, the trial court stated that it appeared from her motion that Shuster was attempting to argue that the underlying judgment was not valid because her earnings were exempt from taxation. The trial court ultimately determined that, regardless of whether Shuster's allegations had merit, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss or modify the underlying judgment because Shuster had not availed herself of the specific procedure outlined by Ohio law to contest a tax assessment.

         {¶6} On appeal, Shuster argues that the trial court erred in denying her motions because (1) it did not have jurisdiction since "neither the Ohio Constitution nor the federal constitution permits governments to tax the labor of the people;" (2) she was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States ...


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.