From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WALTER v. BOES

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Hancock County
May 7, 2002
Case No. 5-01-07 (Ohio Ct. App. May. 7, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 5-01-07.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY May 7, 2002.

Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.

MICHAEL D. PORTNOY, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0040213, 410 Louisiana Avenue, Perrysburg, OH 43551, For Appellants.

DOUG WALTER, JEFFREY HAWKINS, Attorneys at Law, 101 West Sandusky Street, Findlay, OH 45840, For Appellee.


OPINION


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Hancock County Common Pleas Court which deducted pre-appeal court costs from a supersedeas bond posted by the Boes Family Limited Partnership (Partnership) for the benefit of Defendant-appellant, Jane E. Boes (Boes).

On May 3, 1999, Plaintiff-appellee, Judy Walter (Walter), filed an action for partition of land she owned jointly with Boes. On January 31, 2001, the trial court ordered the land sold at a Sheriff's Sale. In response, Boes filed a motion for a stay of the Sheriff's Sale while she appealed. The trial court granted the stay on the condition that Boes posted a supercedeas bond for $25,000. The Partnership, as a surety, posted the bond on behalf of Boes. This court dismissed Boes' appeal for want of prosecution and remanded the case to the trial court for execution of costs. On October 2, 2001, a Sheriff's Sale was held at which the Partnership purchased the land. On January 2, 2002, the trial court ordered the supersedeas bond returned less any court costs that Boes failed to pay.

Boes now appeals this entry asserting the following assignment of error:

The trial court erred by concluding that any costs incurred by the court at the trial level be deducted from the supersedeas bond.

In this case, Boes attempts to appeal an order which deducts court costs from the supersedeas bond posted by the Partnership. However, Boes does not have standing to assert this alleged error. If the Partnership believed that the supersedeas bond should not have paid the costs of the trial level proceedings, then the Partnership should have intervened pursuant to Civ.R. 24 to protect its rights. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed as Boes has not demonstrated how she has personally been injured by the court's order. See Ahrns v. SBA Communications Corp. (Sept. 28, 2001) Auglaize App. No. 2-01-13, unreported (requiring a party to demonstrate an injury in fact to maintain standing). As such, the appellant's assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed .

HADLEY and WALTERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

WALTER v. BOES

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Hancock County
May 7, 2002
Case No. 5-01-07 (Ohio Ct. App. May. 7, 2002)
Case details for

WALTER v. BOES

Case Details

Full title:JUDY L. WALTER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JANE E. BOES, ET AL.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Hancock County

Date published: May 7, 2002

Citations

Case No. 5-01-07 (Ohio Ct. App. May. 7, 2002)

Citing Cases

Torres v. City of Cleveland

Middletown v. Ferguson (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75, 495 N.E.2d 380. See Walter v. Boes (May 7, 2002),…