Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
T. A., Plaintiff,
R. A., Defendant-Appellee, [Appeal by Q.A., Et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.]
from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic
Relations Division Case No. DR-15-355865
& Pla, L.L.C., Jorge Luis Pla, Lila D. Raslan, and Nadia
Zaiem, for appellee.
Hochman & Potter, L.L.C., and Edgar H. Boles, for
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
1} Third-party defendants-appellants, QA.
("appellant") and two corporations, Pearl Road,
Inc. ("Pearl Road") and 871 Rocky River Drive, Inc.
("Rocky River Drive"), bring the instant appeal
challenging the trial court's judgment entry ordering
appellant to release mortgages on Devon Drive, North Olmsted
("marital home") and Rocky River Drive, properties
awarded to defendant-appellee, RA. ("wife") in a
divorce action filed by appellant's brother, plaintiff,
T.A. ("husband"). Appellants also challenge the
trial court's jurisdiction when it ordered them to remain
parties to the proceedings pursuant to Civ.R. 75(B)(1). We
find no merit to the appeal and affirm the trial court's
Factual and Procedural History
2} On February 18, 2015, husband filed a complaint for
divorce against wife in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. See Allan v.
Allan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107142, 2019-Ohio-2111. On
that same day, the trial court issued a mutual restraining
order against both husband and wife. Husband filed an ex
parte restraining order against wife in regard to the
contents within husband's personal safety deposit box.
3} On June 19, 2015, wife filed an answer, counterclaim for
divorce, and cross-claims against appellant. In the divorce
action, wife joined appellant, husband's brother, and two
Sunoco gas stations that husband and appellant jointly owned
and operated. Wife asserted that the two gas stations were
marital property. The gas stations were located at 871 Rocky
River Drive, Berea, Ohio and 7606 Pearl Road, Middleburg
Heights, Ohio. Wife also joined Tallan, L.L.C., husband's
corporation, and various financial institutions in the
cross-claims. The cross-claims consisted of several tort
claims for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, and
4} Pearl Road was purchased by wife with two other partners
in November 1996. The parties purchased the gas station but
did not purchase the land on which the gas station sat.
Allan at ¶ 12. In June 1997, wife became the
sole owner of the Pearl Road gas station. Husband and wife
were married on October 17, 2002. In 2001, husband entered
into a purchase agreement with wife to purchase 51 percent of
the stock in 7606 Pearl Road. In the divorce action, wife
claims that in May 2002, prior to the couple's marriage,
husband coerced her into transferring the remaining 49
percent in the Pearl Road gas station to him and not
compensating her for the transfer.
Sometime in 2004, husband purchased 871 Rocky River Drive.
This purchase included the property, equipment, and the
building. Id. at ¶ 16. On May 21, 2004, husband
organized Tallan, L.L.C. He is the sole member of Tallan,
L.L.C. On June 17, 2004, husband incorporated 871 Rocky River
Drive, and in October 2004, Sunoco, Inc. conveyed the real
property to Tallan, L.L.C. The purchase price was $385, 000.
On October 25, 2004, Tallan, L.L.C, entered into a term note
with Charter One Bank for $269, 500 and an open-end mortgage
was recorded for the same amount. The difference of $120, 000
was contributed by husband and wife, through a mortgage on
the parties' marital home.
6} According to husband, he operated the gas stations with
appellant. Sometime in 2009, husband renovated 871 Rocky
River Drive. However, he and appellant testified that husband
ran out of money and was unable to complete the renovations.
Husband subsequently sold a portion of 871 Rocky River Drive
to appellant, and Tallan, L.L.C. retained ownership of the
real estate. Id. at ¶ 26.
7} The sale of 871 Rocky River Drive was completed through
two transactions. Sometime between October 2010 and March
2011, husband sold appellant 49 percent of the stock in 871
Rocky River Drive. Both appellant and husband testified that
appellant paid husband $10, 000 and assumed the $330, 580
debt to the construction company for the renovation work. On
September 14, 2012, husband sold the remaining 51 percent of
the stock to appellant for $57, 000.
8} On November 22, 2013, husband also sold Pearl Road to
appellant for $150, 000, which husband had originally
purchased for $250, 000.
9} In May 2014, Charter One Bank wrote a letter to Tallan,
L.L.C, stating that the commercial loan for the original
purchase of 871 Rocky River Drive could not be extended past
the maturity date of October 25, 2014, and $181, 088 was owed
on the note. Husband testified that he asked appellant for
assistance with payment on the note. Husband and appellant
apparently entered into an agreement in which appellant was
to pay the remaining balance of $181, 088, and in an effort
to repay appellant, husband would grant a mortgage in that
amount on the marital home.
10} On February 4, 2015, husband granted appellant a mortgage
on the marital home for $181, 088. On that same day, husband,
through Tallan, L.L.C, also granted appellant a second
mortgage on 871 Rocky River Drive in the amount of $181, 088.
Wife did not sign the mortgage and testified that she did not
have knowledge of it. Husband filed for divorce from wife on
February 18, 2015.
11} Once joined in the divorce action, appellant filed a
complaint in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-15-847754 against husband
for failure to pay $188, 088 to appellant. Wife intervened in
that matter and filed a stay, pending the outcome of the
divorce proceedings between husband and wife. The trial court
dismissed appellant's complaint without prejudice in May
12} On October 23, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss
wife's amended counterclaim and cross-claims. The trial
court denied the motion to dismiss on November 19, 2015.
13} Thereafter, on November 24, 2015, appellant filed a writ
of prohibition to this court and an application for an
alternative writ. Allan v. Palos, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 103815, 2016-Ohio-3073. Appellant argued that the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over wife's
cross-claims against appellant. On December 10, 2015, this
court denied appellant's application for an alternative
writ and dismissed appellant's complaint for a writ of
prohibition. This court ruled that the trial court possessed
general subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore,
"prohibition is not available to prevent or correct any
erroneous judgment, nor is prohibition available as a remedy
for an abuse of discretion or as a remedy in order to prevent
an anticipated erroneous judgment." Id. at
¶ 12. In addition, it was noted that appellant possessed