Lori D. Meyers et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
Hadsell Chemical Processing, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellees, [Pike County Sheriff Charles S. Reader, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant].
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 16CV-10186
brief: Ricketts Co., LPA, Richard T. Ricketts, and Andrew C.
Clark, for appellants/cross-appellees. Argued: Andrew C.
brief: Lambert Law Office, Randall L. Lambert, and Cassaundra
L. Sark, for appellee/cross-appellant. Argued: Cassaundra L.
1} Plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees, Lori D.
Meyers and Christopher L. Yerington (collectively,
"appellants"), appeal from a judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas regarding the amount of
amercement awarded by the court in granting their motion for
amercement against appellee/cross-appellant Charles S. Reader
("Sheriff Reader"), in his official capacity as
sheriff of Pike County, Ohio. Sheriff Reader filed a cross-
appeal from the judgment granting the motion for amercement.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Underlying judgment and attempts to execute on
2} The motion for amercement at issue in the present
appeal arises from an attempt to collect on a judgment
obtained by appellants in the underlying lawsuit filed
against defendants-appellees Hadsell Chemical Processing, LLC
("Hadsell Chemical"), Relevant Compounding, LLC
("Relevant"), Donald A. Hadsell, Hadsell
Development, LLC, Robert W. Walton, Jr., Scott D. Evans,
Timothy J. Sherman, and two Jane Doe parties. Appellants'
complaint, filed October 26, 2016, asserted claims for breach
of promissory notes, guarantees, fraud, rescission,
promissory estoppel, civil conspiracy, quantum meruit, unjust
enrichment, restitution, conversion, and recovery of
fraudulent conveyances. By warrant of attorney, appellants
were granted a cognovit judgment of $3, 381, 532.91 against
Hadsell Chemical, Relevant, and Walton, jointly and
severally, on certain claims for breach of promissory notes,
and $149, 230.21 against Relevant and Walton, jointly and
severally, on another claim for breach of a promissory note.
3} On November 8, 2016, appellants filed a praecipe
for a writ or order of execution with the Clerk of Courts of
the Pike County Court of Common Pleas ("Pike County
Clerk"). The praecipe directed the Pike County Clerk to
issue a writ of execution to the Pike County Sheriffs Office
to levy upon and tag certain items as described in an exhibit
to the praecipe, located at a specific address in Waverly,
Ohio, to satisfy the judgment against Hadsell Chemical,
Relevant, and Walton. The Pike County Clerk issued a writ
captioned "writ of possession for personal
property" ("First Writ") to the Pike County
Sheriffs Office on November 10, 2016. The First Writ was
executed on January 30, 2017 and the Pike County Sheriffs
Office seized or tagged various items located at Hadsell
Chemical's place of business ("First Levy").
4} On February 8, 2017, Hadsell Chemical filed a
motion in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas to quash the
First Levy, asserting the First Writ was not timely executed.
The following day, appellants filed a second praecipe for a
writ or order of execution with the Pike County Clerk. That
same day, the Pike County Clerk issued a second writ
captioned "writ of possession for personal
property" ("Second Writ") to the Pike County
Sheriffs Office. The Second Writ was executed on February 16,
2017, and the Pike County Sheriffs Office seized or tagged
various items located at Hadsell Chemical's place of
business ("Second Levy"). On March 7, 2017, the
Pike County Court of Common Pleas entered an agreed order
holding that the First Writ was not timely executed and,
therefore, the First Levy was invalid. Under the agreed
order, Hadsell Chemical waived any objection to the Second
Levy. In April 2017, Hadsell Chemical filed a petition for
bankruptcy in federal court. Subsequently, on August 23,
2017, the Pike County common pleas court entered an agreed
judgment entry providing that the Pike County Sheriffs Office
was directed to turn over all of the levied property to the
5} On January 25, 2017, before the First Writ had
been executed, appellants filed a motion for amercement
against Sheriff Reader in the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas, requesting that Sheriff Reader be amerced for failure
to timely execute the First Writ. The motion requested that
Sheriff Reader be amerced in the amount of appellants'
judgment against Hadsell Chemical, Relevant, and Walton, and
10 percent of that amount, pursuant to R.C. 2707.01, and in
the amount of $1, 000 pursuant to R.C. 2707.03. On May 3,
2017, the trial court stayed the case pending the bankruptcy
proceedings filed by Hadsell Chemical. On August 8, 2017, the
federal bankruptcy court issued an agreed order granting
relief from the automatic stay to permit appellants to pursue
their amercement remedy. Appellants then filed an amended
motion for amercement against Sheriff Reader and the Pike
County Sheriffs Office, seeking the same remedy as in the
first motion for amercement. Appellants subsequently filed a
second amended motion for amercement on October 27, 2017
against Pike County, the Pike County Sheriffs Office, and
Sheriff Reader as an individual and in his official capacity,
seeking the same remedy.
6} On April 26 and 27, 2018, the Franklin County
common pleas court conducted a hearing on the motion for
amercement. The trial court heard testimony from Yerington, a
deputy clerk with the Pike County Clerk's office, Sheriff
Reader, the chief deputy sheriff who previously served as
sheriff, and two administrative employees of the Pike County
Sheriffs Office. Following the hearing, the trial court
issued a decision granting appellants' motion for
amercement. The court further found that ordering Pike County
and Sheriff Reader, in his official capacity, to be amerced
in the amount of appellants' judgment plus costs and 10
percent of the judgment would exceed the limit set forth in
R.C. 2707.03; therefore, the trial court ordered Pike County
and Sheriff Reader to be amerced in the amount of $1, 000
pursuant to R.C. 2707.03.
Assignments of Error
7} Appellants appeal and assign the following two
assignments of error for our review:
I. The Trial Court committed reversible error when it imposed
a monetary limit on this R.C. 2707.01 Amercement Judgment.
II. The Trial Court committed reversible error when it
disregarded the statutory subrogation provisions of R.C.
2707.07 and created its own mitigation structure by applying
the 2707.03 amercement limit to this 2707.01 amercement.
8} Sheriff Reader has filed a cross-appeal and
assigns the following three assignments of error for our
[I.] The trial court erred by finding that the Pike County
Clerk's Office issued a Writ of Execution.
[II.] The trial court erred by finding that Sheriff Charles
Reader failed to timely execute the Writ that was issued by
the Pike County Clerk's Office.
[III.] The trial court erred by finding Sheriff Charles
Reader was delinquent in his official capacity when the
Clerk's Office failed to issue the correct writ.