On Wednesday, August 28, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling dismissing a complaint against Judge Alan Triggs and Magistrate Thomas Beridon of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

The case stemmed from a 2016 civil suit brought by U.S. Bank against Ronald Goldschmidt and his companies, seeking repayment of over $1.5 million in debt. During the ongoing litigation, Magistrate Beridon issued a magistrate’s order in October 2023 granting a charging order filed by the plaintiff, 435 Elm Investment, L.L.C. A charging order allows a judgment creditor to receive any funds a judgment debtor is entitled to from membership in a limited liability company.

Goldschmidt filed an original action seeking a writ prohibiting the magistrate from enforcing the charging order. He argued the magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the order without judicial approval. Under the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure, a magistrate is only authorized to issue orders without approval if they do not dispose of a claim or defense. Goldschmidt claimed a charging order does dispose of a party’s rights, so the magistrate should have only issued a magistrate’s decision subject to adoption by the trial court judge.

In response, Triggs and Beridon filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the magistrate acted within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The First District Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed the case, finding the trial court had authority over charging orders and any errors were issues of procedure, not a clear lack of jurisdiction.

Goldschmidt then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. In its ruling, the high court noted that Ohio’s courts of common pleas have broad subject matter powers, including over civil cases involving debts and property. The justices acknowledged the magistrate may have incorrectly issued an order rather than a decision, but said this was a procedural error that did not eliminate the trial court’s jurisdiction.

As the plaintiff had remedies available through motions to set aside the order, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s determination that a writ of prohibition was unnecessary. The decision provides clarity that minor procedural mistakes by magistrates do not void a trial court’s fundamental authority over a case.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.