The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that allows Unifund CCR, LLC to garnish the bank account of Preston House for unpaid debt. This decision, made on June 23, 2026, affects House, who argued that he did not receive proper notice of the garnishment. The court's ruling clarifies the requirements for notice in garnishment proceedings and reinforces the creditor's rights in such cases.
The case originated when Unifund CCR, LLC, a debt collection agency, filed a lawsuit against House in 2020 for a defaulted credit card account. After House failed to respond, the trial court granted a default judgment in favor of Unifund, awarding them $17,321.18 plus interest and costs. In August 2025, Unifund initiated a non-wage garnishment against House's bank account, which prompted House to file a motion to quash the garnishment.
House claimed he did not receive adequate notice of the garnishment, arguing that this violated his due process rights. He maintained that he was denied the opportunity to contest the garnishment before funds were withdrawn from his account. In response, Unifund argued that the notice provided was sufficient and that House had received the opportunity to request a hearing, which he did.
The trial court held a hearing on the matter and ultimately denied House's motion to quash the garnishment. The court found that Unifund had properly filed and mailed the notice of intent to garnish funds from House's bank account. It stated that House was informed of his right to request a hearing and that the service of the notice was completed appropriately. The court noted, "The debtor then bears the burden to show at the hearing that exemptions apply or that the garnishment is otherwise improper."
In its decision, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that House had received proper notice and had the opportunity to contest the garnishment. The court ruled, "Because House received proper notice of the garnishment, and there is no requirement in R.C. 2716.13(C)(1) that the garnishee wait to remove money from the debtor’s account, House’s second assignment of error is not well-taken." This ruling clarifies that a debtor cannot relitigate the underlying debt in garnishment proceedings.
The implications of this ruling are significant for debtors and creditors alike. It establishes that creditors can proceed with garnishment as long as they provide the required notice, even if the debtor claims they were not adequately informed. This case reinforces the importance of understanding the garnishment process and the rights of both parties involved.
Looking ahead, House may have limited options for appeal. The court's ruling on the garnishment has been affirmed, and while House attempted to include a request for attorney fees in his appeal, the court denied this request due to procedural issues. House's failure to file a timely notice of appeal regarding the attorney fees means that this aspect of his case is also closed.
In conclusion, the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision in Unifund CCR, LLC v. House emphasizes the procedural aspects of garnishment and the importance of timely responses from debtors. This ruling serves as a reminder for individuals facing similar situations to be aware of their rights and the legal processes that govern debt collection.