[Cite as Brooks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2007-Ohio-3868.]
Court of Claims of Ohio
The Ohio Judicial Center
65 South Front Street, Third Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
www.cco.state.oh.us
GORDON BROOKS
Plaintiff
Case No. 2006-05438
Judge Joseph T. Clark
Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo
v.
MAGISTRATE DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
Defendant
{¶1}
On November 29, 2006, defendant filed an amended answer. Plaintiff did not
oppose the filing. Defendant is sua sponte GRANTED leave to amend its answer. On
March 13, 2007, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file a
response. On April 19, 2007, an oral hearing was held at the Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility (SOCF) on defendant’s motion.
{¶2}
Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
{¶3}
“*** Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this
rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or
stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to
but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for
summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation
construed most strongly in the party’s favor. ***” See, also, Gilbert v. Summit County, 104
Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d
317.
Case No. 2006-05438
{¶4}
-2-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
At all times relevant to this action plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and
control of defendant at SOCF. Plaintiff alleges that on June 6, 2005, he was placed in
segregation by defendant’s employees and was denied the opportunity to “pack-up” his
personal property. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s employees did not promptly pack his
property and that numerous items were lost or damaged as a result. Defendant raises the
affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction.
{¶5}
Defendant attached to its motion for summary judgment an affidavit from
James Goodman, the institutional inspector at SOCF. Accompanying Goodman’s affidavit
are both a document titled “Release of Claim” (release) that was signed by plaintiff and
dated September 15, 2005, and a copy of the October 5, 2005, settlement warrant issued
to plaintiff in the amount of $96.81. Defendant asserts that the settlement warrant was
bargained for, and accepted by plaintiff and that it operates as a bar to plaintiff’s claim
under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
{¶6}
In Ohio, “[w]hen an accord and satisfaction is pled by the defendant as an
affirmative defense, the court’s analysis must be divided into three distinct inquires. First,
the defendant must show that the parties went through a process of offer and acceptance
— an accord. Second, the accord must have been carried out — a satisfaction. Third, if
there was an accord and satisfaction, it must be have been supported by consideration.”
Allen v. R.G. Indus. Supply (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 229, paragraph one of the syllabus. In
Allen, the court observed that “[t]wo essential safeguards built into the doctrine of accord
and satisfaction protect creditors from overreaching debtors:
‘[1] there must be a
good-faith dispute about the debt and [2] the creditor must have reasonable notice that the
check is intended to be in full satisfaction of the debt.’” Id. at 232; citing AFC Interiors v.
DiCello (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 1, 12. While the relationship between the parties in this case
is not technically that of a debtor and creditor, the safeguards still apply.
Case No. 2006-05438
{¶7}
-3-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
By signing the release, plaintiff acknowledged that “in consideration of
$96.81” he would “voluntarily and knowingly” release all claims against defendant based
upon the loss of his property on June 6, 2005, and that he understood the terms and
conditions contained in the release. The court notes that the release was also signed by
SOCF Warden, Edwin Voorhies.
{¶8}
Upon examination of the release and consideration of the applicable
standards, the court finds that the document signed by plaintiff shows that the parties
participated in a “good-faith” exchange concerning defendant’s liability for the loss of
plaintiff’s property, and that an accord was reached to settle the dispute. Furthermore, the
court finds that the accord was satisfied by the settlement warrant issued to plaintiff. Thus,
defendant has met its burden of proof regarding the affirmative defense of accord and
satisfaction.
{¶9}
As stated above, plaintiff did not file a response to defendant’s motion, nor
did he provide the court with any affidavit or other permissible evidence to support his
allegations. Civ.R. 56(E) states, in part, as follows:
{¶10} “*** When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as
provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or otherwise provided in this
rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party
does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the
party.”
{¶11} Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the parties and the
evidence provided by defendant, the court finds that no genuine issues of material fact
exist and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is
recommended that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and that
judgment be rendered in favor of defendant.
[Cite as Brooks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2007-Ohio-3868.]
A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of the
filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day
period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other
party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A
party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal
conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law
under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b).
_____________________________________
MATTHEW C. RAMBO
Magistrate
cc:
Gordon Brooks, #389-393
P.O. Box 45699
Lucasville, Ohio 45699
MR/cmd
Filed June 27, 2007
To S.C. reporter July 30, 2007
Daniel R. Forsythe
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
