Background
The City of Columbus brought enforcement actions against properties in violation of building and maintenance codes. The properties at 1660-1668 Parsons Avenue and 445-451 Morrill Avenue were alleged to create hazards to public health, welfare, and safety in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 3767.41 and Columbus City Code. In July 2022, the property owner and defendant-appellant Jose Villavicencio—who claimed an interest in the entity owning the property—entered an Agreed Permanent Injunction and Contempt finding, agreeing to bring the property into compliance.
After the property fell back into non-compliance, the City filed a motion in March 2025 to appoint a receiver. The trial court granted Villavicencio a one-time continuance on April 15, 2025, explicitly warning that no further continuances would be granted and that the hearing would proceed on April 30, 2025 (later reset to June 16, 2025). Before the hearing, Villavicencio filed three separate disqualification affidavits against the trial judge, all denied by the Ohio Supreme Court.
On June 11, 2025, Villavicencio claimed a court secretary told him the June 16 hearing had been postponed to August 26. However, on the morning of June 15, he was allegedly told the hearing was proceeding as scheduled. Villavicencio states he requested a continuance but was denied. Neither Villavicencio nor his counsel appeared at the June 16 hearing. The trial court heard testimony and appointed New Perspective Asset Management, LLC as receiver.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the receiver appointment. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villavicencio’s continuance request. Applying established standards, the court found the trial court was entitled to rely on its explicit prior warning that no further continuances would be granted, and noted that Villavicencio himself contributed to the delays through successive disqualification affidavits.
The court rejected Villavicencio’s claim of a scheduling mix-up, finding that his unsupported allegations—without any affidavit or corroboration from a court employee—were insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Villavicencio’s argument that the trial court erred by not ruling on his post-judgment motion for relief under Civil Rule 60(B), holding that the filing of a notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction over those matters.
The court declined to address three additional assignments of error (that the receiver appointment was against the manifest weight of evidence, that Fourth Amendment violations occurred, and that property redemption rights were impaired) because Villavicencio raised them for the first time on appeal. Since he had the opportunity to present these arguments at the trial court hearing or by written brief but did not, these issues were waived.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on continuance motions and may impose strict limits such as granting only one continuance.
- Unsupported allegations of administrative error require corroboration; a party’s own testimony is insufficient without supporting evidence.
- A party’s failure to appear at a scheduled hearing is not excused by claims of scheduling confusion when the trial court has previously warned against further continuances.
- Filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction, preventing it from ruling on pending post-judgment motions.
- Issues not raised before the trial court are forfeited and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that parties pursuing nuisance abatement and receivership remedies may obtain those remedies even absent the non-complying property owner’s or interested party’s appearance, particularly when that party has delayed proceedings through successive disqualification motions and failed to appear despite notice of a hearing. The court’s refusal to credit unsubstantiated claims of scheduling confusion signals that property owners and claimants must take affirmative steps to ensure they have accurate hearing information and cannot rely on casual conversations with court staff.
For municipalities seeking receivership as a tool to abate nuisances or enforce building code compliance, this decision confirms that trial courts will enforce strict continuance limits and that procedural defaults—including non-appearance—will not be excused absent compelling evidence of trial court error. The case also illustrates the forfeiture doctrine’s application: claims not presented to the trial court, even significant constitutional claims, are lost on appeal.