State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp.
Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
Docket Number | 21AP-443,21AP-444,21AP-445 |
Citation | 2022 Ohio 3400 |
Parties | State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Defendants-Appellees, Samuel C. Randazzo and Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio, Inc., Defendants-Appellants City of Cincinnati and City of Columbus, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Defendants-Appellees, Samuel C. Randazzo and Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio, Inc., Defendants-Appellants State of Ohio ex rel.Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Energy Harbor Corp. et al., Defendants-Appellees, Samuel C. Randazzo and Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio, Inc., Defendants-Appellants |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
On brief:
Dave Yost, Attorney General, Charles M. Miller, Jonathan D Blanton, L. Martin Cordero, Margaret O'Shea, and Bradford Tammaro, for plaintiffs-appellees. Argued: Charles M. Miller.
On brief:
Roger P. Sugarman, Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP, Richard K. Stovall, Jeffrey R. Corcoran, and Tom Shafirstein, for defendants-appellants. Argued: Roger P. Sugarman.
DECISION
BEATTY BLUNT, J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Samuel C. Randazzo ("Randazzo") and Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio, Inc. ("SFAO") (collectively "appellants"), appeal from three orders issued by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas: the August 12 2021 Order Granting Plaintiffs Ex-Parte Motion for Prejudgment Attachment of Property Other than Personal Earnings; the August 12, 2021 Order Granting Plaintiffs Ex-Parte Motion for Prejudgment Attachment of Accounts of Property Other than Personal Earnings; and the August 23, 2021 Order denying the Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Attachment Orders and the related garnishment orders. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and vacate the orders.
{¶ 2} This dispute arises out of litigation initiated by plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost (the "State"), against multiple defendants in connection with the passage of HB 6 of the 133rd General Assembly. The matters before this court, however, involve discrete issues concerning pre-judgment attachments orders issued ex parte pursuant to R.C. 2715, et seq., and post judgment garnishment orders issued pursuant to Chapter 2716.
{¶ 3} The facts and procedural events pertinent to this appeal are not in dispute. For ease of reference, these are set forth in the following timeline:
(Order Denying Mot. to Vacate at 2.)
{¶ 4} On September 7, 2021, appellants filed this timely appeal.
{¶ 5} Appellants assert the following three assignments of error for our review:
{¶ 6} Appellants' assignments of error are all interrelated, and we therefore review them together. We review appellants' arguments implicating issues of statutory construction, which are issues of law, under a de novo standard of review. State v. Hughes, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-385, 2020-Ohio-3382, ¶ 7, citing Clark v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-105, 2018-Ohio-4680, ¶ 16, citing MA Equip. Leasing I, LLC v. Tilton, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-564, 2012-Ohio-4668, ¶ 18. "When conducting such a review, an appellate court does not defer to the trial court's determination." Silver Lining Group EIC Morrow Cty. v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. Autism Scholarship Program, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-398, 2017-Ohio-7834, ¶ 33, citing Akron v. Frazier, 142 Ohio App.3d 718, 721 (9th Dist.2001), citing State v. Sufronko, 105 Ohio App.3d 504, 506, (4th Dist.1995).
{¶ 7} In contrast, we review appellants' arguments concerning the propriety of the issuance of the attachment orders and garnishment orders, which are premised on factual findings, for abuse of discretion. See Reywal Co. v Dublin, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-635, 2017-Ohio-367, ¶ 9, citing State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295, 2007-Ohio-4163, ¶ 8; Americare Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Akabuaku, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-917, 2013-Ohio-3013, ¶ 9 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial