Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Civil
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
No. CV-16-860713
Jason
L. Carter, for appellee.
Ken
Rubenstein, for appellants.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE.
{¶
1} Defendants-appellants, Doug Woods ("Woods") and
What A Lovely Home, L.L.C. ("WALH L.L.C.")
(collectively "appellants"), appeal the trial
court's decision denying their motions for sanctions
filed against plaintiff-appellee, Dana Stallworth
("Stallworth") and her counsel, for (1) maintaining
a frivolous action and (2) engaging in vexatious conduct. For
the reasons that following, we affirm the trial court's
decision.
{¶
2} The underlying lawsuit evolves from a 2014 landlord-tenant
dispute where Woods d.b.a. What a Lovely Home
("WALH") initiated eviction proceedings against
Stallworth in Garfield Heights Municipal Court[1] See
Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. CVG 1402113. The
eviction action was premised on an allegation that Stallworth
was allowing an unauthorized person to live at the property
and for property damage. The parties entered into an
agreement whereby the eviction proceeding would be dismissed
and Stallworth would voluntarily vacate the premises.
{¶
3} Although an agreement was reached, Stallworth filed an
action against Woods d.b.a. WALH in Garfield Heights
Municipal Court for breach of contract and retaliatory
eviction. See Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case
No. CVF1402358. Woods d.b.a. WALH filed a counterclaim
against Stallworth seeking money damages in the amount of $4,
438.49 for unpaid rent, damage to the property, and unpaid
utility bills. In September 2015, the case proceeded to trial
where the court ruled in favor of Woods d.b.a. WALH on
Stallworth's complaint, and also ruled in favor of Woods
d.b.a. WALH on his counterclaim and entered judgment against
Stallworth in the amount of $815.99 plus interest at the rate
of 3% per annum from the date of judgment, and costs.
{¶
4} Stallworth did not pay the judgment. In February 2016 and
after collection efforts were unsuccessful, Woods,
individually, initiated and obtained a garnishment against
Stallworth's bank accounts. Although collection letters
were sent to Stallworth's forwarding address, Woods
served all garnishment notices, including the order of
garnishment, to the rental address that Stallworth formerly
rented from Woods; he was ultimately able to garnish $462
from Stallworth's bank account in March 2016.
{¶
5} In an attempt to collect on the debt prior to seeking
garnishment, Woods filed subpoenas to Stallworth's
financial institutions. Interestingly, the subpoenas were
filed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-13-801757 where Woods, as
plaintiff, brought suit against Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.;
Stallworth was not a party to this action. On February 23,
2016, the trial court issued an order quashing the subpoenas.
The court noted that the case was "definitely
closed" on April 22, 2014, but "beginning on
12/28/2015 and continuing to 02/08/16, [Woods] has issued
multiple subpoenas under this case number commanding
production of the personal financial records of an individual
named Dana Stallworth. Ms. Stallworth was never a party to
this closed case. Nevertheless, the subpoenas being this case
number are captained 'Doug Woods v. Dana
Stallworth.'" The trial court quashed the subpoenas
filed "in their entirety, as they were fraudulently
issued." The court also noted that Woods "busied
himself in filing subpoenas in another case assigned to
another trial judge seeking financial records of another
nonparty individual; the court referenced that case in its
journal entry.
{¶
6} On March 4, 2016, in response to the trial court's
entry, Woods filed a "notice to quash subpoenas based on
filing error." In the notice, Woods contended that the
subpoenas were filed under the incorrect case number by an
outside collection agency that he hired. Woods notified the
court that Stallworth's personal financial records were
not obtained under those subpoenas.
{¶
7} On March 21, 2016, in response to the "fraudulently
issued" subpoenas, Stallworth filed the instant lawsuit
against appellants asserting causes of action for fraud,
conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
invasion of privacy; a first amended complaint was later
filed in August 2016. In her complaint, Stallworth alleged
that appellants knowingly filed subpoenas in a case where she
was not a party that caused her harm. She further alleged
that when the defendants filed a garnishment order in
Garfield Heights Municipal Court, they knowingly sent the
notice to the wrong address, even though the appellants had
her correct forwarding address. She claimed that as a result
of appellants' conduct, her personal funds were
improperly garnished.
{¶
8} Woods denied the allegations contained in Stallworth's
complaint, contending that he had a valid judgment, WALH,
L.L.C. was not a party to the garnishment action or any other
action, that the issuing of the subpoenas was in error by the
collection agency he hired, and no harm was suffered by
Stallworth based on the misfiled subpoenas.
{¶
9} On May 11, 2016, Woods d.b.a. WALH, L.L.C. filed a
judgment lien against Stallworth in the Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court, General Division, in the amount of
$815.99. See trial exhibit No. 1-P-1 (Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court, General Division, docket for Case
No. JL-16-769196).
{¶
10} In October 2017, a trial was conducted before a visiting
judge, who entered judgment in favor of the appellants.
Stallworth requested findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and appellants moved for sanctions and an order declaring
Stallworth a vexatious litigant. Prior to the visiting judge
issuing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
originally assigned judge of the case denied appellants'
motions for sanctions against Stallworth and her counsel and
also denied appellants' request for a vexatious-litigant
declaration. Appellants appealed the denial of their motions
to this court in Stallworth v. Woods, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 106633, 2018-Ohio-3185 ("Stallworth
I ").
{¶
11} In Stallworth I, this court found that the
originally "assigned judge lacked all of the necessary
evidence to determine whether an award of sanctions was
appropriate or whether Stallworth is a vexatious
litigant." Id. at ¶ 14. Accordingly, this
court reversed the judgment and "remanded [the case] to
the assigned judge for a determination on [appellants']
respective motions for sanctions and vexatious conduct, in
light of the visiting judge's findings of fact and
conclusions of law." Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶
12} On October 1, 2018, the assigned judge, as ordered by
this court's remand order, issued a journal entry again
denying appellants' motions for sanctions and vexatious
conduct against Stallworth. The court stated:
In light of the visiting judge's findings of fact and
conclusions of law, defendant What A Lovely Home,
L.L.C.'s motion for sanctions and for plaintiff to be
deemed a vexatious litigant filed 10/27/2017, and defendant
Doug Woods's motion for sanctions and for plaintiff to be
deemed a vexatious litigant, filed 10/27/17, are both denied.
{¶
13} The trial court denied appellants' request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law as it pertained to
the denial of their motions for sanctions and vexatious
conduct. Appellants now appeal, raising five assignments of
error for our review.
I.
Judicial Determination
{¶
14} In their first assignment of error, appellants contend
that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by
failing to have the motions for sanctions decided by the
visiting judge who was the real trier of fact and still had
jurisdiction over the case.
{¶
15} In Stallworth I, this court specifically
remanded the case for the "assigned judge" to
determine appellants' motions for sanctions and vexatious
conduct, "in light of the visiting judge's findings
of fact and conclusions of law." Id. at ΒΆ
15. Accordingly, the assigned judge was operating under the
remand order issued by this court; the assigned judge had no
discretion. Any challenge to this court's judgment and
remand order should have been ...