States Resources Corp. v. Hendy , 2011 Ohio 1900 ( 2011 )

[Cite as States Resources Corp. v. Hendy, 2011-Ohio-1900.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATES RESOURCES CORP. C.A. No. 25423
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CARY V. HENDY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CV 2009-04-2676
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: April 20, 2011
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Cary V. Hendy, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 2004, Cary V. Hendy, a banker at National City, entered into a business
relationship with Anne Zaytzeff. Hendy wanted to acquire additional real estate investments.
Zaytzeff owned a building located at 771 North Howard in Akron, Ohio. Hendy co-managed the
building with Zaytzeff and decided to purchase the property around 2005. On September 26,
2007, Hendy executed a cognovit promissory note, secured by real estate, in favor of Ameribank.
Around December 2008, Ameribank was taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (“FDIC”). Following negotiations between States Resources Corp. and the FDIC as
the receiver for Ameribank, the promissory note executed by Hendy was purchased by States
Resources.
2
{¶3} Hendy made payments electronically each month until December 2008. After the
note was purchased by States Resources, Hendy entered into negotiations with States Resources
seeking a reduction in the principal of the promissory note. However, these negotiations were
unsuccessful and no payments were made by Hendy to States Resources.
{¶4} On April 6, 2009, States Resources filed a complaint on a cognovit promissory
note, and an answer was filed by Hendy admitting all liability. On that same day, a cognovit
judgment was rendered in favor of States Resources and against Hendy in the amount of
$83,215.09, plus attorney fees, interest and costs.
{¶5} On April 23, 2009, States Resources began proceedings in aid of execution. On
May 6, 2009, Hendy filed a motion for relief from judgment and a motion for leave to file an
answer instanter. In these motions he alleged fraud on behalf of States Resources in seeking and
obtaining the cognovit judgment against Hendy. On June 17, 2009, the court granted relief to
Hendy, vacating the cognovit judgment. On that same day, Hendy filed an answer denying all
liability other than his monthly obligations pursuant to the promissory note.
{¶6} On July 24, 2009, States Resources filed a motion for summary judgment. The
trial court denied the motion on September 17, 2009. A bench trial was held between November
24, 2009, and December 17, 2009. On January 20, 2010, a judgment was awarded in favor of
States Resources and against Hendy in the amount of $80,762.21 plus accrued interest of
$10,074.48, late charges of $196.05 and attorney fees and costs. A hearing was scheduled with
respect to legal fees and on May 12, 2010, the court awarded States Resources $17,750.00 in
attorney fees and costs.
{¶7} Hendy timely filed a notice of appeal. He raises three assignments of error for our
review.
3
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.”
{¶8} Hendy contends that the trial court’s judgment is against the manifest weight of
the evidence. We do not agree.
{¶9} In Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291, 2007-Ohio-4918, at ¶3, the
Ohio Supreme Court set forth the civil standard of review for manifest weight challenges:
“When applying a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, a court of appeals should
affirm a trial court when the trial court’s decision is supported by some competent, credible
evidence.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.)
{¶10} The record indicates that on September 26, 2007, Hendy executed a cognovit
promissory note, secured by real estate, in favor of Ameribank. The promissory note included an
acceleration clause. On the same date, Hendy also executed an agreement to provide insurance.
A mortgage securing repayment of the promissory note, also executed on this date, required
Hendy to keep the real estate taxes current. Hendy testified that payments were made to
Ameribank electronically via “Automated Clearing House,” or ACH. Hendy testified that the
last payment that was applied to the loan was during November 2008. He further testified that he
deposited money into his business bank account each month to cover the necessary expenses for
the business property, including the promissory note, insurance, and taxes.
{¶11} Around December 2008, Ameribank was taken over by the FDIC. Melissa
Duncan, an account officer at States Resources, testified that States Resources is the holder of
the promissory note executed by Hendy. She testified to negotiations between States Resources
4
and FDIC as the receiver for Ameribank. The promissory note executed by Hendy was
purchased by States Resources as part of a pool. Duncan identified the promissory note and the
endorsement by the FDIC transferring it to States Resources.
{¶12} Around January 2009, Hendy noticed that the payments for the promissory note
had not been withdrawn from his bank account. He decided to investigate and found that
Ameribank was “in the process of being liquidated.” The parties concede that on February 20,
2009, States Resources sent an introductory letter to Hendy informing him that it had purchased
the loan from the FDIC and that all future payments should be forwarded to States Resources.
Hendy subsequently contacted States Resources to negotiate a reduction in the principal. The
parties were unable to reach an agreement during these negotiations. Specifically, Hendy would
not provide the requested financial information to States Resources. Hendy confirmed that he
received an email from States Resources with a copy of the promissory note that had been
endorsed to it by the FDIC.
{¶13} Duncan further testified that States Resources had not received any funds from
Hendy. In addition, she testified that the taxes on the property were not current and that States
Resources had received notice that the insurance on the property had been cancelled. At trial,
Duncan testified that the outstanding principal balance was $80,726.21, the accrued interest was
$10,074.38, and there were late charges totaling $196.05.
{¶14} The trial court reviewed the documents submitted at trial, considered the
testimony of the witnesses and was in the best position to make credibility determinations.
Eberhart v. Paintiff, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0002-M, 2005-Ohio-4255, at ¶13, quoting State v.
DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. It granted judgment in favor
of States Resources and against Hendy. From the evidence in the record, we conclude that the
5
“trial court’s decision is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Bryan-Wollman at
¶3. Thus, Hendy’s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
PERMITTING THE ADMISSION OF HEARSAY.”
{¶15} Hendy contends that the trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence.
Specifically, Hendy takes issue with the fact that Duncan testified regarding the promissory note,
the payments on the note, telephone calls and emails exchanged with Hendy, and Summit
County records, of which she had no personal knowledge.
{¶16} Generally, this Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of
evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roberts, 156 Ohio App.3d 352, 2004-Ohio-962, at
¶14. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[w]hen a court’s judgment is based on an
[arguably] erroneous interpretation of the law, an abuse-of-discretion standard is not
appropriate.” Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496, at ¶13.
“Whether evidence is admissible because it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule is a
question of law, thus, our review is de novo.” (Italics sic.) Monroe v. Steen, 9th Dist. No.
24342, 2009-Ohio-5163, at ¶11, citing State v. Denny, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0051, 2009-Ohio-
3925, at ¶4.
{¶17} Duncan testified that Hendy was not current in his tax obligations for the property
securing the promissory note. States Resources submitted a certified copy of Hendy’s tax
statement issued by Summit County. Hendy objected to the testimony as well as to the
admission of the document. Counsel for States Resources correctly advised the court that the
court could at least take judicial notice of the certified document. The court allowed the
admission of the exhibit.
6
{¶18} Evid.R. 201 governs judicial notice of facts of the case, or “adjudicative facts.”
See, also, Smith v. McLaughlin, 9th Dist. No. 24890, 2010-Ohio-2739, ¶51. A court may take
judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute that is “capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Evid.R.
201(B). Further, “[j]udicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.” Evid.R.
201(F). Once judicial notice of a fact is taken, a “party is entitled upon timely request to an
opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter
noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has
been taken.” Evid.R. 201(E).
{¶19} During trial, Hendy did not argue that the certified copies were inaccurate or
unreliable. Instead, he argued that Duncan was not the proper party to testify regarding the
documents. The court sustained the objection and did not allow Duncan to testify regarding the
document. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court took proper judicial notice that Hendy
was not current in his tax obligations. This fact is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is
capable of accurate and ready determination by reference to the certified copy from the Summit
County Auditor’s website, a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned given its status as an
official source of government information.
{¶20} “Public records and government documents are generally considered ‘not to be
subject to reasonable dispute.’ This includes public records and government documents
available from reliable sources on the Internet.” (Internal citation omitted.) U.S. ex rel. Dingle
v. BioPort Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2003), 270 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 aff’d sub nom. Dingle v. Bioport
Corp. (6th Cir. 2004), 388 F.3d 209. See also, Grimes v. Navigant Consulting, Inc. (N.D.Ill.
2002), 185 F.Supp.2d 906, 913 (taking judicial notice of stock prices posted on a website); Cali
7
v. E. Coast Aviation Servs., Ltd. (E.D.N.Y. 2001), 178 F.Supp.2d 276, 287 (taking judicial notice
of documents from Pennsylvania state agencies and Federal Aviation Administration); Segle v.
PNC Mtge. (Mar. 25,2011), W.D. Washington No. 10-5655RJB, at *2 (taking judicial notice of a
notice of sale and deed because they were recorded with the auditor and appear on the county’s
website). As a result, the delinquency of Hendy’s tax obligations was subject to judicial notice
under Evid.R. 201(B)(2).
{¶21} Duncan further testified regarding the States Resources file associated with
Hendy. She testified that she is an account officer with the company and that she familiarized
herself with the entire file relating to Hendy’s promissory note. Evid.R. 803(6) addresses the
business records rule as an exception to the hearsay rule. The rule allows the admission of
records kept in the ordinary course of business “if it was the regular practice of that business to
make such records and those records were made by or from information transmitted by a person
with knowledge.” Charter One Mtge. Corp. v. Keselica, 9th Dist. No. 04CA008426, 2004-Ohio-
4333, at ¶19.
{¶22} Hendy contends that Duncan was not permitted to testify concerning the files
because she had no personal conversations with Hendy. “Evid.R. 803(6) does not require an
affiant to have personal knowledge of the exact circumstances of the preparation and production
of the document” but instead requires the affiant to demonstrate “that he or she is sufficiently
familiar with the operation of the business and with the circumstances of the preparation in order
to testify that the record is made in the ordinary course of business.” Id. at ¶21, citing Hinte v.
Echo, Inc. (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 678, 684. Duncan testified that the documents in the file
were kept in the ordinary course of business. She further testified that she is familiar with how
8
States Resources keeps its files, books, and records. Thus, the trial court properly allowed her
testimony as well as the admission of the records.
{¶23} Hendy’s second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES TO [STATES
RESOURCES], AND [STATES RESOURCES] SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
AWARDED THE AMOUNT THAT IT WAS AWARDED.”
{¶24} Hendy contends that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees, or in the
alternative that the court erred in the amount that was awarded. We do not agree.
{¶25} “A trial court’s determination in regards to an award of attorney fees will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Jarvis v. Stone, 9th Dist. No. 23904, 2008-
Ohio-3313, at ¶33, quoting Crow v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 9th Dist. No. 21128, 2003-Ohio-
1293, at ¶38. The phrase “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of judgment; rather,
it implies that the trial court’s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.
Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{¶26} Hendy first argues that the trial court should not have awarded attorney fees
because Hendy “did not default under” the promissory note. Based on our disposition of the first
assignment of error, this argument has no merit because the trial court properly found Hendy in
default. The trial court awarded attorney fees under an express provision of the note that
authorized such an award. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that such provisions are
enforceable. See Nottingdale Homeowners’ Ass’n., Inc. v. Darby (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 32, at
the syllabus.
{¶27} Hendy further argues that the award of attorney fees was too high. The trial court
conducted a hearing on the award of attorney fees. It considered the factors set forth in
9
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) including the difficulty of the case, the attorney’s experience, the results
obtained, and the fee charged. The trial court found that the work performed and charged was
necessary for the results obtained. The trial court ultimately awarded $17,550, the total attorney
fees paid by States Resources. In addition, the trial court recognized that the “case was unique in
that it involved a cognovit note that proceeded to trial after [States Resources’] motion for
summary judgment was denied.” Hendy did not object to the hourly rate paid by States
Resources for its representation, and fails to point to any law supporting the argument that such
fee was too high. See App.R. 16(A)(7). As previously noted, the amount of attorney fees to be
awarded is a matter of discretion for the trial judge. Jarvis at ¶33. In this case, the trial court
properly exercised its discretion.
{¶28} Hendy also argues that the trial court erred in permitting States Resources to
present the fee bill, identified as Exhibit A, because it had not been produced in response to
discovery requests. However, the record indicates that the trial court allowed Hendy additional
time to review the documents and defend against the exhibits.
{¶29} Hendy fails to demonstrate that the trial court’s award for attorney fees was
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 219. Thus, his third
assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶30} Hendy’s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. The judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
10
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS C. LOEPP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ROSEMARY TAFT MILBY, and MATTHEW G. BURG, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.