[Cite as Coastline Ohio, LLC v. Extended Family Concepts, Inc., 2011-Ohio-811.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COASTLINE OHIO, LLC, ET AL. JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellees Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2010CA00113
EXTENDED FAMILY CONCEPTS, INC.
DBA HEATHER RIDGE COMMONS
OPINION
Defendant-Appellants
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2010CV00917
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 22, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellees For Defendant-Appellants
Coastline Ohio LLC
COLLEEN M. O'NEIL JAMES M. MCHUGH
NATHAN A. WHEATLEY JOHN D. RAMSEY
ALEXANDER B. REICH Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos & Raies, LTD.
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP 220 Market Avenue, South
1400 KeyBank Center Eighth Floor
800 Superior Avenue Canton, Ohio 44702
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
For Receiver, SAK-Ohio
NANCY A. VALENTINE
JEFFREY A. BRAUR
EMILY W. LAKKY
Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP
200 Public Square Suite 2800
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Extended Family Concepts, Inc. d/b/a/ Heather Ridge
Commons appeals the April 8, 2010 Order of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas
appointing Appellee SAK Management – Ohio, LLC as receiver. Plaintiff-appellee is
Coastline Ohio, LLC.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Extended Family Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Heather Ridge Commons
(“Extended Family”) provides assisted living facilities to residents in Stark County. In
August of 2007, Heather Ridge entered into a loan agreement with Affinity Bank, a
California company later acquired by Pacific Western Bank from the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation. In February of 2010, Coastline Ohio, LLC (“Coastline”) acquired
all of the rights and interests of Pacific Western Bank through various agreements.
{¶3} Following Appellant’s alleged default on the loan agreement, Coastline
filed the complaint in this matter for collection on a note, foreclosure, replevin and
appointment of receiver against Extended Family.
{¶4} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion for
appointment of receiver on March 17, 2010.
{¶5} Via Judgment Entry of March 23, 2010, the trial court stated it was not
convinced SAK Management – Ohio, LLC should be appointed receiver in this matter
and ordered the parties to meet with Gregory F. McNulty III, CPA, JD of Bruner Cox,
LLP to review Appellant’s financials and to determine whether or not the firm could act
as receiver in this matter. It was later determined Bruner Cox, LLP could not be
appointed as receiver due to a conflict of interest.
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 3
{¶6} As a result Appellee Coastline filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial
court’s March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry requesting appointment of SAK as receiver
citing the conflict of interest and SAK’s industry experience.
{¶7} On March 30, 2010, the trial court issued an Order Appointing Receiver in
which the court appointed SAK Management-Ohio, LLC, Inc., through Suzanne Koenig,
its sole member, as receiver of all the assets and all real and personal property of
Extended Family.
{¶8} On March 31, 2010, Appellant Extended Family filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s appointment of receiver by order of March 30, 2010. The
motion cites the trial court’s March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry arguing the trial court
found SAK Management-Ohio, LLC, through Suzanne Koenig, its sole member, an
inappropriate appointment with all powers enumerated in Plaintiff’s proposed order.
Further, Appellant Extended Family argued service of Appellee’s motion for
reconsideration was not made upon counsel for Extended Family until March 29, 2010,
therefore, Extended Family did not have adequate notice and/or opportunity to be heard
before the trial court issued its order.
{¶9} On Motion of Extended Family, the trial court stayed execution of the
March 30, 2010 order pending hearing of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration.
{¶10} On April 8, 2010, the trial court issued an order amending, in part, the
order appointing the receiver, and vacating the stay of execution. The order amended
the scope of authority of the receiver, but reaffirmed the decision to appoint SAK
Management-Ohio, LLC, through Suzanne Koenig, its sole member, as receiver.
{¶11} Appellant Extended Family now appeals, assigning as error:
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 4
{¶12} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ENTERING ITS
APRIL 8, 2010 ORDER WHICH APPOINTED SAK MANAGEMENT-OHIO, LLC, AS
RECEIVER AND GRANTED SAK MANAGEMENT-OHIO THE EXTENSIVE POWERS
ENUMERATED IN THE STAYED MARCH 30, 2010 ORDER.”
{¶13} Initially, we note, a trial court’s decision to appoint a receiver is reviewed
under an abuse of discretion standard. Equity Centers Development Company v. South
Coast Centers, Inc. (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 643. An abuse of discretion means more
than an error of law or judgment, it implies that the trial court’s attitude was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio
St.3d 217.
{¶14} Extended Family asserts the trial court’s March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry
found SAK Management-Ohio, LLC to be an inappropriate selection for receiver. Yet
Appellant’s brief admits the trial court “properly appointed a receiver after considering
hours of testimony and other evidence at the March 17, 2010 hearing.” Appellant
Extended Family has provided no authority to suggest the trial court exceeded its broad
statutory discretion to define a receiver’s powers.
{¶15} We find Appellant’s brief mischaracterizes the language of the trial court’s
March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry asserting the trial court rejected or found SAK
inappropriate for appointment as the receiver. The trial court’s Judgment Entry states,
{¶16} “However, at this time the Court is not convinced that SAK Management-
Ohio, LLC, through Suzanne Koenig, its sole member, should be appointed as receiver
with all powers enumerated in Plaintiff’s proposed order.
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 5
{¶17} “Instead, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet with Gregory F. McNulty,
III, C.P.A., J.D., of Bruner-Cox, LLP to review Defendant’s financials and to determine
whether or not the firm is in a position to act as receiver in this matter.***” (Emphasis
added.)
{¶18} The trial court never made a finding SAK Management-Ohio, LLC was
inappropriate for appointment as receiver. Rather, the trial court seemingly makes a
preference for a local appointment instead of the out-of-town SAK. The statement the
court is “not convinced” is not tantamount to a finding of “inappropriate” or rejection.
Upon discovery of a conflict of interest with Bruner Cox, the trial court then proceeded to
reconsider and appoint SAK Management-Ohio, LLC.
{¶19} Appellant thinly veils the procedural history asserting the trial court did not
afford Appellant notice or an opportunity to be heard. However, a review of the record
demonstrates the trial court stayed execution of its March 30, 2010 Order pending a
hearing on Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court issued an order
amending in part the order appointing the receiver on April 8, 2010, which indicates the
trial court further considered the matter based upon the April 5, 2010 hearing. We find
the trial court provided Appellant Extended Family notice and opportunity to be heard
before issuing its April 8, 2010 Order.
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 6
{¶20} We do not find the trial court abused its discretion in appointing SAK
Management-Ohio LLC as receiver in this matter, and Appellant Extended Family’s sole
assignment of error is overruled.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Edwards, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00113 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COASTLINE OHIO, LLC, ET AL. :
:
Plaintiff-Appellees :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
EXTENDED FAMILY CONCEPTS, INC. :
DBA HEATHER RIDGE COMMONS :
:
Defendant-Appellants : Case No. 2010CA00113
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
s/ Julie A. Edwards ___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS