Phoenix Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Jackson , 2013 Ohio 5280 ( 2013 )

[Cite as Phoenix Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Jackson, 2013-Ohio-5280.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PHOENIX FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, : JUDGES:
INC. AND ASSIGNEE OF: DUTRO :
USED CARS, INC. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2013-0019
:
ANGELA M. JACKSON :
:
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court, case no. CVF-1300014
JUDGMENT: REVERSED & REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 19, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee:
JAMES L. BLUNT ANGELA JACKSON, pro se
445 Longview Ave. 362 Mead St.
Mansfield, OH 44903 Zanesville, OH 43701
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0019 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Phoenix Financial Solutions, Inc., an Assignee of: Dutro Used
Cars, Inc., hereby appeals from the March 18, 2013 Consent Judgment Entry entered in
the Muskingum County Court. Appellee Angela Jackson is pro se and did not file a
brief.
{¶2} This case is factually and procedurally similar to Phoenix Financial
Solutions, Inc., an Assignee of: Dutro Used Cars, Inc. v. Nichols, 5th Dist. Muskingum
No. CT2013-0013, which is decided upon the same rationale as the instant case.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶3} Appellee bought a car from Dutro Used Cars, Inc. and signed a
promissory note with interest at a rate of 21.0% and then failed to remit the payments as
required by the promissory note. The debt was assigned to appellant on October 17th,
2012, and appellant filed a complaint in the Muskingum County Court on January 8,
2013 for the deficiency balance, requesting the contractual rate of interest from the date
of sale of the repossessed vehicle.
{¶4} Appellee was duly served and appellant filed a motion for summary
judgment. The parties agreed to a Consent Judgment Entry specifying a payment plan
of monthly payments of $75.00, a principle amount of $2,069.55, plus a contractual
interest rate of 21.0% per annum from September 24, 2012, plus the costs of bringing
and maintaining the action.
{¶5} On March 18, 2013, the trial court granted a Consent Judgment Entry
against appellee, but sua sponte reduced the interest rate in the entry from the agreed-
upon contractual rate to the “statutory rate.”
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0019 3
{¶6} Appellant now appeals from the March 18, 2013 Consent Judgment Entry
of the trial court.
{¶7} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT PLAINTIFF THE
CONTRACTUAL RATE OF INTEREST, PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE
1343.03, AS AGREED TO BY DEFENDANT ON A CONSENT TO JUDGMENT.”
ANALYSIS
{¶1} Appellant argues the trial court improperly entered judgment including the
statutory interest rate instead of the contractual interest rate. In light of our decision in
Dutro Used Cars, Inc. v. Spohn, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT08-0047, 2009-Ohio-2912,
we agree, and therefore we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} Appellant argues the trial court improperly reduced the interest rate from
the contractual rate of 21.0% to the statutory rate. Ohio Revised Code Section 1343.03
states in pertinent part:
(A) In cases other than those provided for in sections 1343.01 and
1343.02 of the Revised Code, when money becomes due and
payable upon any bond, bill, note, or other instrument of writing,
upon any book account, upon any settlement between parties,
upon all verbal contracts entered into, and upon all judgments,
decrees, and orders of any judicial tribunal for the payment of
money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract or other
transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0019 4
determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised Code,
unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest in
relation to the money that becomes due and payable, in which case
the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate provided in that
contract. Notification of the interest rate per annum shall be
provided pursuant to sections 319.19, 1901.313, 1907.202,
2303.25, and 5703.47 of the Revised Code. (Emphasis added.)
{¶3} As we stated above, we have previously held when a written contract
contains a legal rate of interest then the rate should be applied to the judgment. Dutro
Used Cars, Inc., supra, 2009-Ohio-2912, ¶ 9, citing Amer. Gen. Fin., Inc. v. Bauer, 5th
Dist. Delaware No. 00CAG08023, unreported, 2001 WL 498508 (May 4, 2001).
Muskingum County, Case No.CT2013-0019 5
CONCLUSION
{¶4} We therefore sustain appellant’s sole assignment of error. The judgment
of the Muskingum County Court is reversed and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings in accord with this opinion.
By: Delaney, J. and
Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J., concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER