State of Ohio, Department of Taxation v. William W. Johnson
| Decision Date | 23 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | 97-LW-5021,96CA793 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Department of Taxation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William W. Johnson, et al., Defendants-Appellants Case |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Mark T Musick, Jackson, Ohio, for Appellants William and Rosetta Johnson.
Lawrence A. Heiser and Christopher J. Regan, Oths, Heiser, Regan & Miller, Wellston, Ohio, for Appellee State of Ohio, Department of Taxation.
Barry L. Smith, Jackson, Ohio, for Appellee Jackson Savings Bank.
DECISION
William and Rosetta Johnson appeal a judgment of the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas confirming the sale of their real estate following the execution of several liens by the State of Ohio, Department of Taxation.
Appellants assign the following errors for our review:
The State of Ohio, Department of Taxation filed a complaint to marshal various liens filed against real estate owned by William and Rosetta Johnson. According to the complaint, William Johnson owed $145,355.32, plus interest, to the Department of Taxation. This debt was evidenced by eight (8) certificates of judgment filed in Jackson County. Similarly, Rosetta Johnson owed $98,261.60, plus interest, to the Department of Taxation as evidenced by four (4) separate certificates of judgment also filed in Jackson County. The exact nature of these underlying judgments does not appear in the record.
The Department of Taxation later filed a motion for summary judgment which was supported by the affidavit of the Deputy Director of Special Account Collections in the Attorney General's office. Appellants also filed a memo contra in which they argued the amounts contained in the state's complaint were inaccurate. The trial court granted the Department of Taxation's motion for summary judgment and ordered the real estate owned by appellants to be sold at public auction.
After their property was valued at $140,000, the appellants filed a motion to set aside the appraisal alleging one of the appraisers was not a "freeholder" as required by R.C. 2329.17. Appellants' property was later sold at public auction for $95,000. After one of the parties filed a motion to confirm the sale, the appellants filed a memorandum contra to the motion. Appellants argued that R.C. 2329.17, rather than R.C. 2329.22, should apply to this sale because the sale has not resulted in the appellants being discharged from their obligations to the Department of Taxation. Appellants also filed an objection to the proposed confirmation of the sale, as well as a motion to set aside and prevent the confirmation or, in the alternative, to discharge their tax obligation. The trial court denied all of appellants' motions and filed an order confirming the sale.
Appellants contend in their first assignment of error the trial court improperly construed the statutory provisions applicable to this case. According to appellants, R.C. 2329.17 requires the state to obtain a valid appraisal of the property prior to its sale at public auction. The Department of Taxation counters that R.C. 2329.22 permits the state to sell an individual's property without an appraisal whenever the property's owner owes the state money for taxes.
In construing a statute, a court's paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute. State v. S.R. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594. Under Ohio law, it is a cardinal rule that a court must first look to the language of the statute itself to determine the legislative intent. Shover v. Cordis (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 218; S.R., supra, at 595. In interpreting a statute, words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Independent Ins. Agents of Ohio, Inc. v. Fabe (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 310, 314; R.C. 1.42. Courts do not have the authority to ignore the plain and unambiguous language of a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation, but must give effect to the words used. Wray v. Wymer (Sept. 11, 1991), Scioto App. No. 1867, unreported. In other words, courts may not delete words used or insert words not used. Cline v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 93, 97. Finally, an appellate court reviews a trial court's construction of a statute de novo and without deference to that court's determination.
In this case, appellants' property was appraised prior to the public auction. After the appraisal, however, appellants challenged the propriety of the valuation due to an alleged violation of R.C. 2329.17. That is, R.C. 2329.17 provides that when execution is levied upon lands, three disinterested "freeholders" must appraise the property and estimate the real value of the property in money. Appellants submitted the valuation in this case was invalid because one of the appraisers did not own any real property and thus, was not a "freeholder."
The trial court dismissed this argument by reasoning that appellants were not prejudiced by any deficiency in the appraisal procedure because appellants were not entitled to an appraisal. R.C. 2329.22 clearly states, "All lands, the property of individuals, indebted to the state for debt, taxes, or in any other manner shall be sold without valuation for the discharge of such debt or taxes."
On appeal, appellants argue that R.C. 2329.22 is inapplicable to this case because the statute only applies to situations where the sale of the property actually discharges the owner's obligation to the state. In this case, the $95,000 purchase price was disbursed as follows: (1) $2,099.78 to the Jackson County Clerk of Courts as costs in this action; (2) $10,952.68 to the Jackson County Treasurer for real estate taxes on the property; and (3) $81,941.5d to the Jackson Savings Bank in partial payment of its mortgage lien on the property. As a result, even though this action was initiated in order to satisfy appellants' obligations to the Department of Taxation, appellants claim they have been prejudiced because the state actually did not receive any of the sale proceeds.
Our review of the applicable statutes, however, fails to reveal any support for appellants' argument. While it is true that appellants' obligations to the Department of Taxation have not been discharged, or even diminished, that alone does not permit us to ignore the express language of the statute. That is, R.C. 2329.22 clearly states that "All lands, the property of individuals, indebted to the state for * * * taxes * * * shall be sold without valuation for the discharge of such * * * taxes. (Emphasis added.) See, also, 40 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1982) 393, Enforcement & Execution of Judgments, Section 205 and 64 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1985) 134, Judicial Sales, Section 26.
As a result, we hold the trial court properly applied the plain and unambiguous language contained in the applicable statutes. Appellants have failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue that R.C. 2329.17, rather than R.C. 2329.22, applies in this case so as to require the state to secure an appraisal on the property. Accordingly, appellants' first assignment of error is overruled.
The second assignment of error claims the trial court erred in accepting an appraisal submitted by a non-freeholder. However, we have determined that appellants were not entitled to an appraisal, so appellants have failed to demonstrate they have suffered any prejudice as a result of this alleged error. Likewise, the fourth assignment of error claims Rosetta Johnson's dower rights were prejudiced due to the alleged errors in the first two assignments of error. Again, based on our disposition of those alleged errors, appellant has failed to demonstrate she suffered any prejudice. Thus, appellants' second and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
Appellants' third assignment of error claims the legal notice published in the local newspaper improperly listed their equipment for sale as part of the property. Specifically, the notice stated "This description is intended to convey all the rights, title and interest of the said Grantor in and to said premises and the building located thereon, including all fixtures and equipment therein." (Emphasis added.) According to appellants, this language would lead the buyer at the sheriff's sale to expect that appellants' possessions, equipment, computers, desks and other items were included in the sale.
Although the sheriff's sale had been completed prior to the time this appeal was filed, the record does not reflect that the buyer of this property mistakenly claimed title to any of the appellants' personal property. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the language contained in the legal notice adversely affected appellants' property interests, this court holds appellants have again failed to allege the commission of any prejudicial error. Accordingly, appellants' third assignment of error is overruled.
Therefore, the judgment of the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
JUDGMENT...
To continue reading
Request your trial