COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68654 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,: : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : SUSAN J. HORSFALL, : : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 20, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 261637 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: Robert B. Weltman WELTMAN, WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES Lakeside Plaza #200 323 Lakeside Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee: Susan Horsfall, Pro Se Champs Toulouse BL Route De La Branvavde CH-1290 Chavannes- Des-Bois, SW 2 NAHRA, J.: Appellant, General Environmental Science Corp., appeals the order of the trial court dismissing its claims against appellee, Susan J. Horsfall, alleging violations of Ohio's Uniform Fraud Transfer Act, R.C. 1336.01-09, violations of a prior restraining order, and a joint conspiracy to hide assets from the plaintiff judgment holder. The trial court determined that the sanctions for discovery abuse imposed by the United States District Court Northern District of Ohio, Oct. 10, 1991, were no longer valid due to the fact that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the underlying actions upon which the sanctions were based. The trial court erred, in that the sanctions with which this court is concerned are in a valid separate judgment, and ancillary to the prior proceedings. Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal is reversed and remanded so that the appellant's claims may be properly addressed. The appellant has been involved in commercial litigation with, inter alia, Frank L. Horsfall, the spouse of appellee, Susan J. Horsfall, since 1989. In one of the underlying actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a series of sanctions for discovery abuses were entered against appellee's husband, Frank L. Horsfall and his attorneys. The first sanction was imposed on April 4, 1991, with a hearing held on October 10, 1991, which determined the reasonable attorney fees to be awarded for this abuse as $44,425.75. Further, in these same proceedings, on May 21, 1991, the District Court enjoined and 3 restrained Frank L. Horsfall, et al., from transferring or otherwise disposing of property that might be used to satisfy judgment. The second order concerning discovery abuse was granted on March 10, 1992, and discussed more fully in the District Court's final opinion on the case, May 29, 1992. General Environmental Science Corp., Inc. v. Horsfall, et al., (N.D.Ohio 1992), 800 F.Supp. 1497. In this opinion, appellant was given the ultimate award of a Default Judgment for $11,861,658.17, as well as an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $268,284.64. Id. Subsequently, on appeal to the Sixth Circuit, the May 29, 1992, award of the default judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings, and the award of sanctions in the amount of $268,284.64 was vacated. General Environmental Science Corp. v. Horsfall (C.A. 6, 1994), 25 F.3d 1048. This opinion specifically addressed sanctions granted in the final judgment of May 29, 1992, but never addressed the sanctions of October 10, 1991. However, the court was careful to mention the independent nature of sanctions, and how they can remain unaffected by the reversal of a default judgment. Id. This action was instituted by appellant against appellee in the trial court to collect the monies concerning the sanction order of October 10, 1991, against her husband, Frank L. Horsfall. The trial court granted defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff-appellant did not assert a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court reasoned that the 4 sanction order of October 10, 1991, had been vacated by the Sixth Circuit, along with the default judgment. As a result, there was no valid judgment upon which appellant could base its claim as judgment creditor. On August 13, 1997, the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, upon a Motion for Reconsideration in Part (Doc. 396), by plaintiff-appellant, determined that its previous Memorandum of Opinion and Order that the $44,425.75 award of attorney fees was vacated was in error. In that order, the District Court determined that these orders were distinct because the May 29, 1992, order for sanctions was separate and apart from the prior order of October 10, 1991. General Environmental Science Corp. v. Horsfall et al. (N.D.Ohio, August 13, 1996) case nos. 1:90 CV 1340; 95 CV 2007, unreported. Considering the distinctiveness of each, the court reasoned that the May 29, 1992, order for sanctions concerned the destruction of documents, while the October 10, 1991, sanctions were for a failure to comply with discovery requests. To further indicate the separateness of the October sanctions, the court pointed to the fact that a separate hearing for determination of fees was also held. Id. The District Court went on to say that [i]n as much as the Sixth Circuit did not expressly reverse this award, defendants remain obligated for the $44,424.75. Id. The appellant's assign three errors for our review, and inasmuch as the first two are interrelated, they will be treated together. 5 The appellant's first and second assignments of error are: . THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT WHICH STATES VALID CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID ENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT- APPELLEE'S SPOUSE (FRANK L. HORSFALL) IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,424.75. The basis for the judgment at the trial court level rested upon the fact that the October 10, 1991, order for sanctions had been vacated and, as a result, no binding final judgment existed. The August 13, 1997, order of the District Court, clarified this issue stating that a binding final judgment did exist. Accordingly, appellant's first and second assignments of error are well taken. As a result, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT- APPELLEE'S SPOUSE (FRANK L. HORSFALL), PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE (SUSAN J. HORSFALL) FOR RECOVERY OF FUNDS TRANSFERRED BY DEFENDANT- APPELLEE'S SPOUSE (FRANK L. HORSFALL) TO DEFENDANT APPELLEE (SUSAN J. HORSFALL) IN VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. This assignment of error is rendered moot by our ruling on assignments of error I and II. See, App.R. 12(B)(6). 6 This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SWEENEY, JAMES D., C.J., and _____________________________ JOSEPH J. NAHRA McMONAGLE, TIMOTHY E., J., CONCUR. JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .