[Cite as Burton Carol Mgt., L.L.C. v. Ziegler, 2015-Ohio-4926.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
BURTON CAROL MANAGEMENT, LLC, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2015-L-010
- vs - :
IRM B. ZIEGLER, et al., :
Defendants-Appellants. :
Civil Appeal from the Mentor Municipal Court, Case No. 14 CVG 00227.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Michael D. Linn, and James J. Costello, Powers Friedman Linn P.L.L., Four Commerce
Park, Suite #180, 23240 Chagrin Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44122 (For Plaintiff-
Appellee).
Irm B. Ziegler, pro se, P.O. Box 601, Grand River, OH 44045 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
Joseph R. Ziegler, pro se, 120 Court Street, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Irm and Joseph Ziegler timely appeal two decisions issued by the Mentor
Municipal Court: 1. the January 9, 2015 Judgment Entry ordering garnishment against
Irm only and 2. the January 15, 2015 Judgment Entry addressing various issues. This
appeal is one of many filed by appellants arising from the jury’s 2014 verdict in
appellee’s favor against Irm for $2,778.65.
{¶2} Although Joseph Ziegler was originally named as a defendant in this suit,
appellee voluntarily dismissed him well before the jury trial. An appeal only lies on
behalf of a party that can show his rights have been affected and if his affected interest
is immediate and pecuniary. Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Public Utilities
Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, 42 N.E.2d 758 (1942); In re Guardianship of Love, 19 Ohio
St.2d 111, 113, 249 N.E.2d 794 (1969). The sole argument on appeal in this case
arises from the garnishment against Irm only, which arose from the verdict against her
only. Joseph has not been affected by the garnishment ruling. Accordingly, he is not a
proper party to this appeal, and the arguments herein are addressed on behalf of
appellant Irm Ziegler only.
{¶3} Her sole assignment of error asserts:
{¶4} “Did the assigned trial court judge act without subject matter jurisdiction,
abuse it’s [sic] discretion, create manifest injustice, structurally err, plain err, unlawfully
exercised judicial construction and/or is their [sic] ad hoc decision contrary to, conflicts
with, and/or involves a unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
entitling indigent pro se defendants (debtors) equal protection procedural due process
of law and due process access to the courts before unlawfully garnishing defendants
property/assets/debts obtained by plaintiffs/creditors through fraud and denial of right to
a fair trial in violation of state/federal law and the US Constitution?”
{¶5} We do not, however, reach the merit of appellant’s assignment of error on
appeal because it is rendered moot as a result of appellee’s satisfaction of judgment.
Wiest v. Wiegele, 170 Ohio App.3d 700, 2006-Ohio-5348, 868 N.E.2d 1040, ¶11 (1st
Dist.); Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243, 245, 551 N.E.2d 1249 (1990); Hagood v.
Gail, 105 Ohio App.3d 780, 785, 664 N.E.2d 1373 (11th Dist.1995).
2
{¶6} It is well established that satisfaction of a judgment renders an appeal
from that judgment moot. Wiest at ¶11. “‘Where the court rendering judgment has
jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties, and fraud has not
intervened, and the judgment is voluntarily paid and satisfied, such payment puts an
end to the controversy, and takes away * * * the right to appeal or prosecute error or
even to move for vacation of judgment.’ And if an appellant neglects to obtain a stay of
the judgment, the non-appealing party has the right to attempt to obtain satisfaction of
the judgment even though the appeal is pending. When ‘the non-appealing party is
successful in obtaining satisfaction of the judgment, the appeal must be dismissed
because the issues raised in the appeal have become moot.’” (Citations omitted.) Id.
{¶7} In Wiest, the Wiegeles did not voluntarily satisfy the judgment by making
payments. “Instead, Wiest was able to satisfy the judgment through garnishment of
funds from the Wiegeles' bank accounts. * * *.” Id. at ¶12. Thus, regardless of the
involuntariness of the satisfaction of judgment, the First District Court of Appeals
“dismissed the appeal because the issue had become moot—the case was over. No
further proceedings, * * * were possible.” Id. at ¶13.
{¶8} In this case, appellee filed its notice of satisfaction of judgment with the
trial court June 30, 2015, and the trial court issued its judgment entry July 8, 2015
acknowledging that the judgment against Irm Ziegler had been satisfied. Because
these items were not properly before us, we ordered the trial court to supplement the
record on appeal, which it did.
{¶9} Upon a review of the supplemented record, this appeal is moot based on
satisfaction of judgment. Id. Thus, we cannot address appellant’s assignment of error
on appeal because our opinion would be purely advisory. Id.
3
{¶10} Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is moot and this appeal is
dismissed.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., concurs in judgment only.
4