EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS INSURANCE COMPANY RRG, et al. Appellants
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al. Appellees
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2017-05-1896
MICHAEL J. MORAN and AARON A. RIDENBAUGH, Attorneys at Law,
M. WEIGAND, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Emergency Physicians Insurance Company, RRG ("Emergency
Physicians"), appeals the order of garnishment of the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas on a foreign judgment
granted in favor of Summa Emergency Associates, Inc.
("Summa") against Emergency Physicians. We affirm.
In May 2017, Summa filed a foreign judgment in the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas on a judgment obtained on March
22, 2017, in the Second Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada, County of Washoe. The Nevada judgment was a
confirmation of an arbitration award originally issued in
October 2013. On June 22, 2017, the trial court granted
Summa's motion for a full faith and credit order, and
granted judgment in favor of Summa and against Emergency
Physicians as set forth by the Nevada judgment. The trial
court issued an order and notice of garnishment to U.S. Bank
on June 27, 2017, and Emergency Physicians subsequently filed
a motion to stay execution pending a hearing on its objection
to the garnishment. On July 26, 2017, the trial court
overruled Emergency Physicians' objections, denied a stay
of execution, and released the funds deposited by U.S. Bank
with the Clerk of Courts. Emergency Physicians now appeals,
raising one assignment of error.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING AUTHORITY FOR THE APPELLEE TO
LEVY ON PROPERTY IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN WHAT APPELLEE WAS
Emergency Physicians argues the trial court erred when it
ordered the garnishee to turn over monies representing
interest on the award prejudgment. We disagree.
This Court reviews questions of law under a de novo standard.
State v. Trifari, 9th Dist. Medina No. 08CA0043-M,
2009-Ohio-667, ¶ 12. Ohio's Uniform Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments Act, R.C. 2329.021 through 2329.027, sets
forth this state's obligations under the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. "The
doctrine of full faith and credit requires that the state of
Ohio give to these acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
another state the same faith and credit 'as they have by
law or usage in the courts of such State * * * from which
they are taken.'" Holzemer v. Urbanski, 86
Ohio St.3d 129, 132 (1999). A foreign judgment is subject to
collateral attack in Ohio only if there was no subject matter
or personal jurisdiction to render the judgment under the law
of the foreign state. Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign
Co., 11 Ohio St.2d 1 (1967), paragraph one of the
syllabus. The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals has
further addressed the doctrine of full faith and credit as it
applies to foreign judgments:
When applied to judicial determinations, the full faith and
credit clause means that a valid judgment issued in one state
must be recognized -- without examining the underlying merits
of the action -- by all other states. In Fauntleroy v.
Lum (1908), 210 U.S. 230, 52 L.Ed. 1039, 28 S.Ct. 641,
the United States Supreme Court held that as long as the
first court had proper jurisdiction, the second court
must recognize the judgment even if the first court
misapplied the law or even made a clearly erroneous decision.
See, also, S.23: Ohio Enacts an Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments Law (1983), 9 Univ. of Dayton L.R. 391.
Thus, full faith and credit means that Ohio courts must
recognize the judgments of the courts of other
states and enforce those judgments even if clearly erroneous
on the merits or even where the ...