 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Charlie's Dodge3/1/1991
Per Curiam.
This matter is before the court on appeal from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.
On September 21, 1988, appellants, Charlie's Dodge, Inc. and Grogan Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., were each served with a subpoena duces tecum by the Attorney General of the state of Ohio. Essentially, the Attorney General under R.C. 1345.06 sought documents which would prove that appellants regularly charged consumers for the delivery and handling of newly purchased automobiles. The Attorney General was investigating possible consumer fraud under R.C. Chapter 1345, the Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA").
On September 21, 1988, appellants filed a motion to quash the subpoenas. Appellants argued that the Attorney General had insufficient grounds and/or authority in which to issue the subpoenas. In response, the Attorney General argued that the CSPA gives him broad authority to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Attorney General explained that the practice of charging delivery and handling fees in the automobile sales industry has been used by unscrupulous dealers to fraudulently overcharge consumers for automobiles. Simply stated, some dealers will charge consumers for delivery and handling even though the manufacturer has already compensated the dealer for this service. With his response, the Attorney General included two preprintespurchase orders from appellants' respective businesses showing specific price categories for delivery and handling. When contract sales forms include a category for dealer "prep" charges, the Attorney General argued that he has reasonable cause to believe that the dealer is in violation of the CSPA.
On November 15, 1988, the court found that the Attorney General had reasonable cause to believe that appellants were engaging in an unfair or deceptive sales practice. Appellants' motion to quash was denied.
On December 13, 1989, the parties agreed to allow the court to take possession of the requested documents until: (1) appellants agreed to voluntarily deliver the documents to the Attorney General, or (2) the court orders appellants to deliver the documents to the Attorney General following a contempt proceeding.
On March 7, 1990, the court found appellants in contempt of court for failing to obey the duly served subpoenas. Appellants were fined $250 and were granted ten days in which to purge their contempt of court. On March 7, 1990, appellants filed this instant appeal setting forth the following assignments of error:
"Appellant's First Assignment of Error: The common pleas court erred in finding appellants in contempt for refusing to respond to subpoenas which the Attorney General had no authority to issue or serve upon the appellants.
"Appellants Second Assignment of Error: The lower court erred in failing to find that the Attorney General was required to comply with Revised Code 1345.08 before investigating the appellants.
"Appellants Third Assignment of Error: The lower court erred in not finding that appellants' rights protected by the Ohio and United States constitution were violated."
We note at the outset that this court will not reverse a lower court's finding of contempt absent an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Ventrone, v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 11, 19 O.O.3d 191, 417 N.E.2d 1249, 1250. Contempt has been defined by the Supreme Court of Ohio as "* * * conduct which brings the administration of justice into disrespect, or which tends to embarrass, impede or obstruct a court in the performance of its functions." Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk (1971), 27 O
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|