Rice v. Poteet , 2019 Ohio 4797 ( 2019 )

[Cite as Rice v. Poteet, 2019-Ohio-4797.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
CAROLYN RICE, AS TREASURER :
OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 28414
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2019-CV-109
v. :
: (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas
ROGER POTEET : Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 22nd day of November, 2019.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHELE PHIPPS, Atty. Reg. No. 0069829, 301 West Third
Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ROGER POTEET, 145 East Market Street, Germantown, Ohio 45327
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
.............
HALL, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Roger Poteet appeals pro se from the trial court’s entry of a default judgment
against him on a tax-foreclosure complaint filed by appellee Montgomery County
Treasurer.
{¶ 2} Poteet’s one-page appellate brief lacks an assignment of error or any
substantive argument. In its entirety, it reads: “Notice of appeal my property tax
assessment is over assessed for overall condition of my property.” Attached to the brief
are the following exhibits: (1) a December 2010 letter from a real estate broker opining
that the value of Poteet’s property located at 145 E. Market Street in Germantown was
$68,000, (2) an undated probate court paper for a Samuel Poteet, deceased, identifying
his assets as including the property at 145 E. Market Street and valuing it at $68,000, (3)
a copy of the 2012 tax bill for the property at 145 E. Market Street in appellant Roger
Poteet’s name and reflecting an appraised value of $101,570, and (4) a 2011 notice of
property value update in Roger Poteet’s name showing a value of $101,570 for the
property.1 The Treasurer has moved to strike these exhibits on the grounds that they are
not properly before us.
{¶ 3} The record reflects that the Treasurer filed a January 7, 2019 “Complaint for
Foreclosure of Delinquent Real Estate Taxes.” (Doc. #1.) It alleged that the total amount
appellant Poteet owed Montgomery County for “taxes, assessments, charges, and
penalties” was $11,738.02. The complaint sought a finding that the Treasurer had a valid
first lien in the amount owed. It requested that the equity of redemption be foreclosed and
1 Although it has no bearing on the issue before us, it appears that Samuel Poteet died
at some point in the past and appellant Roger Poteet acquired the property.
-3-
that the property be sold at a sheriff’s sale. Poteet was served with a summons and a
copy of the complaint by certified mail through FedEx on January 16, 2019. (Doc. # 7,
10.) He subsequently failed to plead or otherwise defend in the action. On April 24, 2019,
the Treasurer moved for a default judgment against Poteet and other potential unknown
defendants (who had been served by publication). (Doc. #19.) The trial court sustained
the motion and entered a default judgment and decree of foreclosure on April 25, 2019.
(Doc. # 22.)
{¶ 4} Default judgments are governed by Civ.R. 55, which provides in part: “When
a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend as provided by these rules, the party entitled to a judgment by default
shall apply in writing or orally to the court therefor[.]” A trial court’s decision to grant a
default judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Wright State Univ. v. Williams,
2d Dist. Greene No. 2012 CA 37, 2012-Ohio-5095, ¶ 5. An abuse of discretion implies
that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 5} We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s entry of a default judgment
against Poteet. Under Civ.R. 12(A)(1), a defendant must answer a complaint within 28
days after service of the complaint and summons. Poteet was served on January 16,
2019, and he never filed an answer or otherwise defended. Therefore, the Treasurer was
entitled to move for a default judgment on April 24, 2019, and the trial court properly
sustained the motion.
{¶ 6} Poteet’s assertion that his property is over assessed is not grounds to
reverse the trial court’s entry of a default judgment. We note too that Poteet’s assessment
-4-
challenge is not a proper defense to a foreclosure complaint. As the Treasurer points out,
R.C. 5715.11 provides a mechanism for a property owner to challenge the county’s
valuation of real estate for tax-assessment purposes. Nothing in the record indicates that
Poteet utilized this statutory process, which is the proper way for him to raise a valuation
argument.
{¶ 7} Finally, the State is correct that the exhibits accompanying Poteet’s appellate
brief are not part of the record on appeal. Although the State has moved to strike the
exhibits on that basis, we will allow them to remain in the record because they have no
bearing on the outcome of Poteet’s appeal. Even if we were to consider the exhibits, the
result would be the same. The State’s motion to strike is overruled.
{¶ 8} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
.............
WELBAUM, P.J. and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Michele Phipps
Roger Poteet
Hon. Steven K. Dankof