Narrative Opinion Summary
A judgment was rendered against John H. Farmer in favor of Combustion Federal Credit Union in 1992, which remained unpaid. The creditor's petition for revival of the judgment was granted by the Hamilton County Circuit Court. Farmer appealed, asserting he never signed the promissory note that underpinned the 1992 judgment. The court affirmed the revival, ruling that the judgment was res judicata and Mr. Farmer's claims lacked sufficient evidence since he failed to comply with the appellate procedure and did not specify any issues for review. Consequently, the court assumed the trial court's actions were supported by the record. Costs were assessed to Mr. Farmer.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Procedure and Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Farmer's failure to comply with appellate procedures and specify issues for review led the court to assume the trial court's actions were correct.
Reasoning: Mr. Farmer's claims lacked sufficient evidence since he failed to comply with the appellate procedure and did not specify any issues for review.
Assessment of Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assessed the costs of the appeal to John H. Farmer, holding him responsible for the expenses incurred.
Reasoning: Costs were assessed to Mr. Farmer.
Res Judicatasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the 1992 judgment against Farmer was res judicata, meaning it was final and conclusive regarding the issues that were or could have been raised.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the revival, ruling that the judgment was res judicata and Mr. Farmer's claims lacked sufficient evidence.
Revival of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the creditor's petition for revival of the judgment against John H. Farmer, affirming its validity despite Farmer's appeal.
Reasoning: The creditor's petition for revival of the judgment was granted by the Hamilton County Circuit Court.