UNIFUND CCR, L.L.C. v. House

Summary

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Preston House’s motion to quash a non-wage garnishment arising from a 2020 default judgment in favor of UNIFUND CCR, LLC. The court held that garnishment proceedings cannot be used to relitigate the underlying debt and that Ohio law does not require a bank to delay removing funds during the period in which the debtor may request a garnishment hearing. The court also held that the trial court’s attorney-fee decision was not properly before it because House lacked a timely notice of appeal.

Holdings

1. A garnishment hearing is limited to claims of exemption or defenses to the garnishment itself; a judgment debtor may not use the proceeding to relitigate the underlying debt or default judgment.
2. A garnishee is not required by R.C. 2716.13(C)(1) to wait before removing money from a debtor's account during the period in which the debtor may request a garnishment hearing, so a garnishment cannot be quashed on that basis when the debtor received the required notice and hearing.
3. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's attorney-fee decision because House did not properly appeal that decision within the time permitted by the appellate rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether House could use the garnishment proceedings to relitigate UNIFUND's standing, ownership of the underlying debt, evidentiary proof, or the amount of the default judgment.
2. Whether the trial court properly denied House's motion to quash where House received the statutory garnishment notice and hearing but claimed that the bank should have been prohibited from removing funds during the period in which he could request a hearing.
3. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the trial court's November 21, 2025 attorney-fee decision when House did not timely and properly appeal that decision.

Disposition

affirmed