Todd M. Coffman v. Tod J. Phillips, 97-LW-2005
| Decision Date | 17 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | 13-97-03,97-LW-2005 |
| Parties | TODD M. COFFMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. TOD J. PHILLIPS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CASE NUMBER 13-97-03 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
SAUTER HOHENBERGER & BEDDOW, Wayne P. Hohenberger, Attorney at Law Reg. #0012682, Suite 306, 24 West Third Street, Mansfield, OH 44902, For Appellants.
KENNEDY, PURDY, HOEFFEL & GERNERT, Paul E. Hoeffel, Attorney at Law Reg. #0008697, 107 Washington Square, Bucyrus, OH 44820-0191, For Appellee.
Defendants-Appellants, Tod and Pamela Phillips appeal the judgment entry of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court denying their Motion for an Order for Satisfaction of Judgment.
On May 15, 1993 Tod Phillips, while driving his vehicle, struck a vehicle driven by Plaintiff-Appellee, Todd Coffman. Coffman sustained personal injuries and property damage as a result of this incident. At the time of the incident, Phillips had liability insurance with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Prior to this case going to trial, State Farm advanced Coffman $2,137.50 to assist him with payment of his medical bills and wage loss he sustained as a result of the incident. In exchange for the advancement of the expenses, Coffman signed a receipt indicating that the advancement was "to be credited to any final settlement or to the amount payable under [State Farm's] policy for any judgment which [Coffman] may obtain * * *" as a result of the incident with Phillips.
On July 12, 1996 a jury for the Seneca County Common Pleas Court returned a verdict in favor of Coffman and awarded him damages for his personal injuries in the amount of $22,266.03. The court filed the judgment entry in this case on July 30, 1996 confirming the verdict for Coffman and against Phillips.
On October 2, 1996, Phillips filed a motion with the trial court requesting an order for satisfaction of judgment be entered in the case. Contemporaneously with the filing of the motion, Phillips proffered a check to the court for $20,128.53. The check represented payment on the verdict less the amount previously paid to Coffman as part of the expense advancement for wage loss and medical expenses. The trial court, in addition to taxing Phillips with additional court costs which had accrued, denied Phillips' motion for an order for satisfaction of judgment. The basis of the court's decision to deny Phillips' motion was that he was not entitled to reduce the amount payable to Coffman for the advanced expenses received prior to trial. The court stated that "because [Phillips] did not plead the affirmative defense of 'payment' or 'release'" he was therefore precluded from attempting to assert the defense.
This appeal follows with Phillips asserting one assignment of error.
The trial court erred in overruling the appellants' motion for an order of satisfaction of judgment because appellant is entitled to deduct monies advanced to the appellee. The advance payments were the subject of receipt for expense advance.
Phillips contends that the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Passarelli Bros. Automotive Serv., Inc. (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 6 controls the resolution of the present dispute. In Edwards, supra, the Court stated that "[w]here an advance payment is made to a possible tort-claimant upon condition that such payment is to be credited to the amount of any final settlement or judgment in favor of such tort-claimant, such sum shall be credited to any final judgment in a hearing upon a motion for an order for satisfaction of judgment." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
Coffman contends that Edwards, supra, is no longer controlling authority since the decision was reached prior to the adoption of and is inconsistent with the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure. Specifically, Coffman maintains that Civ.R. 8(C) required Phillips to raise the affirmative defense of "payment" before judgment, and his failure to do so constitutes a waiver of such defense under Civ.R. 12(G). The trial court adopted Coffman's position in overruling Phillips' motion for satisfaction of judgment.
We reverse the judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court. The Court in Edwards, supra, stated that to obtain credit for advance payments to the tort-claimant, the tortfeasor must file a postjudgment motion requesting credit toward satisfaction of the judgment. Id. at 9; see Chambers v. Pinson (1966), 6 Ohio App.2d 66, 68. The requirement to file a postjudgment motion requesting credit for advanced payments has withstood the adoption and implementation of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. See Drive-N-Shoppe, Inc. v. Pavlik (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 149, 150; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Porter (1989), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 116, 119.
In the present case, Phillips filed a postjudgment motion requesting the court enter an order of satisfaction of judgment. As part of the motion Coffman stated that under the authority of Edwards, supra, he is entitled to credit for the advanced expenses made to Phillips. Although the motion is not titled as a motion for credit for the advanced payments Coffman argues that he is entitled to credit...
To continue reading
Request your trial