If, by virtue of a writ of execution issued from a court of record in this state, an officer levies it on goods and chattels claimed by a person other than the defendant, such officer shall give written notice to a judge of the court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court, whichever court has jurisdiction. The notice shall contain the names of the plaintiff, defendant, and claimant, and at the same time furnish the judge a schedule of the property claimed. As soon as is practicable after the receipt of the notice and schedule, the judge shall schedule a hearing to determine the claimant's right to the property in controversy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1991–2017 · leading case: Morris v. Erieway, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994).
Morris v. Erieway, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). · cites it 12דThe trial court treated this as a claim of third-party ownership pursuant to R.C. 2329.84. The trial court then granted the summary judgment motion of Morris, finding that appellant was barred from presenting any right, title, claim, or interest in the vehicles as it did not…”
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Lacava, 2017-Ohio-7916. · cites it 3ד24 and R.C. 2329.84. However, the magistrate concluded that the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion, 3 the trial court granted subject to the filing of a supersedeas bond.”
FRC Proj., L.L.C. v. Canepa Media Solutions, Inc., 2013-Ohio-259. · cites it 4דIt could have also availed itself of the provisions of R.C. 2329.84. FRC now argues that similar statutes have been held unconstitutional and it should not be required to rely on this unconstitutional remedy.”
Shaffer v. Jones, 2017-Ohio-7730. “09, or a third-party claim under R.C. 2329.84. Rather, the essence of their motion is that Schaffer and Jones colluded to minimize the funds available for their garnishment, and that the trial court is without authority to continuously reopen and 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF…”
Ryan v. Carter, 621 N.E.2d 399 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 2דHe released the horse without following the procedure delineated in R.C. 2329.84, *570 which provides the remedy for determining ownership of goods that have been levied upon.”
Sky Bank v. Lenart & Assocs., Inc., 2013-Ohio-5122. · cites it 3ד{¶17} Likewise, R.C. 2329.84 provides: If, by virtue of a writ of execution issued from a court of record in this state, an officer levies it on goods and chattels claimed by a person other than the defendant, such officer forthwith shall give written notice to a judge of the…”
Home S. & L. Co. of Youngstown v. Avery Place, L.L.C., 2015-Ohio-5191. · cites it 3דOwnership {¶17} The issue of ownership of property subject to execution is found in R.C. 2329.84. This statutory provision “provides the remedy for determining the ownership of goods that have been levied upon.”
Ryan v. Carter, 1993 Ohio 168 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 2דHe released the horse without following the procedure delineated in R.C. 2329.84, which provides the remedy for determining ownership of goods that have been levied upon.”
Gary Moeralli Excavating, Inc. v. Trimat Constr., Inc., 2013-Ohio-1311. · cites it 7ד{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Gallipolis Municipal Court judgment in an R.C. 2329.84 proceeding initiated by the Gallia County Sheriff (Sheriff).”
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Bywood, Inc., 2015-Ohio-4927. · cites it 3ד{¶6} On October 31, 2014, BSW filed a demand for R.C. 2329.84 determination of claimant's rights.”
N & D, Inc. v. Harrod, 596 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991). · cites it 2דOn March 2, 1989, when the property under the 1983 writ of execution had not yet been sold or returned (plaintiffs had grown tired of waiting for the execution sale and desired the return of the bailed goods as having been improperly levied upon for the judgment obligation of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.