Shepherd v. Richland Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Shepherd v. Richland Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency, 2010-Ohio-4780.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RANDY SHEPHERD Plaintiff-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vsCase No. 10CA38 RICHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OPINION Defendant-Appellee CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2008CV0294 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 28, 2010 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee RANDY SHEPHERD, PRO SE 3558 Alvin Rd. Shelby, Ohio 44875 ANDREW N. YOSOWITZ MARK LANDES Isaac, Brant, Ledman and Teetor, LLP 250 East Broad Street, Suite 900 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Richland County, Case No. 10CA38 2 Hoffman, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Randy Shepherd appeals the February 23, 2010 Judgment Entry of the Common Pleas Court of Richland County, overruling his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) Motion for Declaratory Judgment Civ.R. 57. {¶2} The instant appeal results from Appellant s refusal to accept this Court s decision in Shepherd v. Richland County Child Support Enforcement Agency (Feb. 10, 2009), Richland County App. No. 08 CA 83, 2009-Ohio-1671.1 Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from our prior decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on July 1, 2009. See, 122 Ohio St.3d 1455; 2009-Ohio-3131. {¶3} Thereafter, Appellant filed the instant motion in the trial court attempting to collaterally attack this Court s prior decision, raising many of the same arguments he did in the prior appeal as well as a new argument challenging the authority of Appellee s counsel. As aptly stated in the trial court s February 23, 2010 Judgment Entry, Most of the reasons Plaintiff provides in his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment are merely tired rehashing of the assignments of error that he presented to the Fifth District Court of Appeals . . . [T]his court does not have discretion to decide those issues in a manner inconsistent with the ruling of the Fifth District Court of Appeals . February 23, 2010 Judgment Entry at p.3. {¶4} We fully concur in the trial court s characterization of Appellant s motion as nothing more than a tired rehashing . We note, not only did the trial court have no discretion to do anything inconsistent with our prior opinion, but also it had no jurisdiction to do so. The judgment of a reviewing court is controlling upon the lower 1 See this Court s prior opinion for a Statement of the Case. Richland County, Case No. 10CA38 3 court as to all matters within the compass of the judgment. See, State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges (1978) 55 Ohio St.2d 94, at 97. {¶5} Furthermore, Appellant s attempt to assert a new argument questioning the authority of Appellee s counsel could have been raised in the original appeal and is clearly barred under the principle of res judicata. {¶6} All of Appellant s assignments of error are overruled. {¶7} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL {¶8} In its reply brief, Appellee has requested permission to submit a statement of reasonable expenses . . . including attorney fees and costs under App.R. 23. We find the instant appeal is frivolous and grant Appellee s request. Appellee shall submit its statement of reasonable expenses incurred in this appeal within 20 days of the entry of our opinion, with appropriate service upon Appellant. Appellant will have 20 days from the date of the filing of Appellee s statement of reasonable expenses to respond, with appropriate service upon Appellee. By: Hoffman, J. Edwards, P.J. and Wise, J. concur s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS s/ John W. Wise______________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE Richland County, Case No. 10CA38 4 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RANDY SHEPHERD Plaintiff-Appellant -vsRICHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Defendant-Appellee : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 10CA38 For the reason set forth in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant. s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS s/ John W. Wise _____________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RANDY SHEPHERD Plaintiff-Appellant -vsRICHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Defendant-Appellee : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 10CA38 Appellee shall submit its statement of reasonable expenses incurred in this appeal within 20 days of the entry of our Opinion, with appropriate service upon Appellant. Appellant will have 20 days from the date of the filing of Appellee s statement of reasonable expenses to respond, with appropriate service upon Appellee. s/ William B. Hoffman _________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS s/ John W. Wise _____________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.