Robert L. Smith and Sheila K. Smith

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 26
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2026
CAT
JP
TED
CY COURT
SC
JTH
DISTRICT
Jym A. Crit
Tyson A. Crist United States Bankruptcy Judge
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
:
Case No. 25-32544
Robert L. Smith
Sheila K. Smith,
:
Chapter 7
Judge Crist
:
Debtors.
:
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (I) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEBTORS' [AMENDED OMNIBUS] MOTION TO AVOID LIEN[S] (DOC. 18); AND (II) GRANTING DEBTORS ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE ANOTHER MOTION TO AVOID LIENS
I. Background
Before the Court is the [Amended Omnibus1] Motion to Avoid Lien[s] (Doc. 18) (the "Motion") filed by Debtors Robert L. Smith and Sheila K. Smith (the "Debtors"). Through the Motion, the title of which refers to a "Lien" in the singular, the Debtors seek to avoid ten2 (or
1 Ordinarily, the Court prefers that separate motions be filed concerning each lienholder and, optimally, as to each lien, given that the correct calculation for lien avoidance requires backing out liens avoided through a prior motion. See In re Johnson, 609 B.R. 728, 730 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2019) (Hoffman, J.) (concluding that even though the Debtor filed separate motions, factoring in "the value of all three of the other Judgment Liens in each Motion" disregarded "the plain language of § 522(f)(2)(B)[,]" which can lead to "impermissibly shield[Ing] non-exempt equity"). "To comply with § 522(f)(2)(B), the Debtor must instead omit one of the Judgment Liens with each new impairment calculation, even if he files the motions contemporaneously." Id. (citing In re Derocha, 503 B.R. 553, 557-58 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2014)).
2 The Motion identifies ten (10) liens, but the proposed order actually identified another judgment lien held by Wilson Memorial Hospital (24JL000283) filed with the Court of Common Pleas, Shelby County, Ohio that was not identified in the Motion, such that there are actually eleven (11) judgment liens discussed in this Order.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
:
* OIHO HO

2
eleven) liens on their residential real property located at 519 North Main Avenue, Sidney, Ohio
45365 (the “Property”) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).3
Although the Debtors did not attach a deed to the Motion evidencing their interests in the
Property, they assert that “Debtors are the fee owners of said property pursuant to a General
Warranty Deed dated October 2, 1997. Instrument #199700008631[.]” Mot. at 1. However, the
Property is listed on Schedule A/B as being owned in fee simple only by Shelia Smith (“Ms.
Smith”), identified therein as “Debtor 2.”4 Sched. A/B: Property at 1, Part 1, item 1.1 (Doc. 1 at
10). Further, the Shelby County Auditor shows the Property as owned only by Ms. Smith through
a General Warranty Deed of the same date, October 2, 1997. It therefore appears that Debtor
Robert M. Smith (“Mr. Smith”) is not on the deed to the Property and holds only an inchoate dower
interest. The Debtors scheduled the Property with a current value of $59,410 (Schedule A/B at 1
(Doc. 1 at 10)) and allege in the Motion that this is based on the Shelby County Auditor’s valuation.
Further, Debtors listed in their Schedule D (Doc. 1 at 23, Part 1, item 2.8) and alleged in the Motion
that there is a first mortgage held by Five Star Group, which is being serviced by M&T Bank, in
the amount of $10,438.
The alleged judgment liens that the Debtors seek to avoid as impairing their asserted
combined homestead exemptions of $365,250,5 under Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1), are
listed as the Second through Eleventh Priority items in the Motion as follows:
3 The Debtors also reference 11 U.S.C. §§ 506 and 1332(b)(2) in their Motion but fail to explain how those sections
apply to the avoidance of the judicial liens.
4 The dower interest of Robert Smith may be properly claimed under the homestead exemption only to the extent of
his dower interest. In re Whitt, 534 B.R. 320, 322, 325 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2015) (collecting cases).
5 The Ohio Judicial Conference adjusts the homestead exemption amount every three years on April 1st. R.C.
2329.66(B). As of April 1, 2025 (and until March 31, 2028), the Ohio homestead exemption is $182,625 for each
resident. See www.ohiojudges.org/Resources/publications (last accessed June 3, 2026); see R.C. 2329.66(A)(1)(b)
(providing a homestead exemption “in one parcel of item of real or personal property that the person or a dependent
of the person uses as a residence.”). As the petition in this case was filed on December 19, 2025, the $182,625 figure
would apply. In re Wengerd, 453 B.R. 243, 250 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2011) (finding that exemptions are determined as of
the petition date). Although it mathematically does not matter for the purposes of this Motion, it is notable because
only Ms. Smith owns the Property, meaning only she can claim an exemption for up to the full value. Moreover, a
Debtor cannot, for purposes of § 522(f)(2)(A)(iii), claim an exemption for more than the value of the real property.
Thus, the maximum exemptible interest, according to the value the Debtors have scheduled, is $59,410.00, and Mr.
Smith’s inchoate dower interest is worth less than that but does not need to be valued for purposes of this Motion.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 26

3
1. 	Wilson Memorial Hospital: Sidney Municipal Court Case 18CVF01176, judgment
obtained against Robert Smith on January 24, 2019, in the amount of $3,323.65,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on March 18, 2019
(19JL000105) and renewed January 16, 2024 (24JL000037);
2. 	Wilson Memorial Hospital: Sidney Municipal Court Case 19CVF00429, judgment
obtained against Sheila Smith on May 8, 2019, in the amount of $2,296.32,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on June 28, 2019
(19JL000324) and renewed April 1, 2024 (24JL000236);
3. 	Midland Funding LLC: Sidney Municipal Court Case 20CVF00243, judgment
obtained against Sheila Smith on August 21, 2020, in the amount of $1,550,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on January 24, 2022
(22JL000061);
4. 	LVNV Funding LLC: Sidney Municipal Court Case 22CVF01324, judgment
obtained against Sheila Smith on February 14, 2023, in the amount of $1,992.31,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on August 15, 2024
(24JL000500);
5. 	DNF Associates LLC: Sidney Municipal Court Case 23CVF00019, judgment
obtained against Sheila Smith on April 27, 2023, in the amount of $770.69,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on November 13,
2023 (23JL001197);
6. 	ADLP Investments LLC Series 1: Sidney Municipal Court Case 23CVF00436,
judgment obtained against Sheila Smith on May 25, 2023, in the amount of
$1,125.23, judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on
November 6, 2023 (23JL001192);
7. 	Wilson Memorial Hospital: Sidney Municipal Court Case 15CVF00532, judgment
obtained against Sheila Smith on July 9, 2015, in the amount of $1,381.10,
judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on August 31, 2015
(15JL000556) and revived on July 29, 2024 (24JL000425);
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 26

4
8. 	LVNV Funding LLC: Sidney Municipal Court Case 24CVF00951, judgment
obtained against Robert Smith on January 27, 2025, in the amount of $658.86,
judgment filed with “the Sidney County Clerk of Courts on June 3, 2025.” Mot. at
3 (Ninth Priority). However, no such certificate of judgment was not provided with
the Proposed Order, and the certificate of judgment “also filed with the Shelby
County Common Pleas Court on August 15, 2024 as 24JL000500,” that is
referenced in the Motion in the “Ninth Priority” is actually for the judgment lien
identified in the “Fifth Priority” (Mot. at 2-3);
9. 	NCO Portfolio Management, Inc.: Sidney Municipal Court Case 08CVF01720,
judgment obtained against Sheila Smith on January 27, 2009, in the amount of
$1,748.66, judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on
September 3, 2009 (09JL000580) and revived sometime in 2020 according to the
Motion, although the judgment lien was not renewed;
10. 	SAC Finance, Inc.: Sidney Municipal Court Case 08CVF01556, judgment obtained
against Robert Smith on December 11, 2008, in the amount of $3,740.88, judgment
filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court 	on January 12, 2009
(09JL000029).6
The Motion was accompanied by a twenty-one day notice and appears to have been
properly served on all lienholders identified within the Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7004. No objections were filed, and the Court conducted independent
calculations to determine whether the liens were avoidable as impairing the Debtors’ homestead
exemption under R.C. § 2329.66(A)(1). See Brinley v. LPP Mortg., Ltd. (In re Brinley), 403 F.3d
415, 421-23 (6th Cir. 2005) (determining the proper calculation to determine if a judgment lien is
partially or fully avoidable). Fundamentally, due to the alleged $59,410 value of the property, or
even at the 2026 taxable total value of $79,010 shown on the Shelby County, Ohio Auditor’s
website, there is little doubt about the calculation with respect to Ms. Smith’s fee simple interest.7
6 The Debtor indicates the judgment liens of NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. and SAC Finance, Inc. were not
renewed and believes they are no longer valid, but to the extent they are valid, seeks to avoid them out of “an
abundance of caution.” Mot. at 3.
7 Because none of the alleged judgment lienholders have opposed this Motion and because the Court does not have
the deed before it, the Court will not undertake to value Mr. Smith’s apparent inchoate dower interest in the property.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 26

5
A proposed Order Granting Amended Motion to Avoid Lien (the “Proposed Order”) was
submitted to the Court after the appropriate notice period. Attached to the Proposed Order were
copies of certificates of judgment evidencing the liens that Debtors sought to avoid.8 After
reviewing the Proposed Order, the Court determined that a certificate of judgment was attached
for each of the liens that the Debtors sought to avoid in the Motion except for the $658.86 judgment
lien held by LVNV Funding, LLC, related to Sidney Municipal Court Case 24CVF00951. This
debt appears to be listed on the Debtors’ Schedule E/F as a non-priority unsecured debt under the
name of a different creditor, “Avant, LLC/Webbank.” Doc. 1 at 31, ¶ 4.3. Additionally, attached
to the Proposed Order is a certificate of judgment held by Wilson Memorial Hospital against
Robert Smith in the amount of $2,615.21, Sidney Municipal Court Case 24CVF00017, that is not
mentioned in the Motion. This debt was listed on Schedule D as a secured claim. (Doc. 1 at 26,
¶ 2.14.)
The Debtors received their discharges on May 4, 2026 (Doc. 27), and this case will be
ready to close following the resolution of the current Motion; however, as set forth below, the
Court will hold the case open to provide the Debtors further time to file another motion to avoid
liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f),9 as they deem appropriate.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Unopposed Avoidance of Judicial Liens Under § 522(f)(1)(A)10
Ordinarily, because the Debtor’s Motion is unopposed, the Court would simply accept the
allegations in the Motion as true. In re Rudicil, 343 B.R. 181, 182 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006) (Walter,
J.). However, as set forth above, the allegation in the Motion that “Debtors are the fee owners of
said property” is squarely contradicted by the Debtors’ Schedule A/B and the Shelby County
Auditor’s records. Mot. at 1. Further, the Debtors have not submitted a copy of the granting deed
with their Motion. And this is why, as stated in the Court’s Interim Policy and Procedure 5.f., the
Court prefers (and may soon require) “that the motion be accompanied by a copy of the granting
8 The certificates of judgment filed with the Court of Common Pleas for Shelby County, Ohio, which are being
avoided, are also attached to this Order.
9 In the remainder of this Order, unless otherwise noted, all sections referenced are sections of title 11 of the United
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
10 The Court is writing on this topic because motions to avoid liens are frequently unopposed.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 26

6
deed . . . .” In the absence of that granting deed, the Court presumes that Schedule A/B, signed
under penalty of perjury, and the Shelby County Auditor’s records are correct that only Ms. Smith
is a fee owner of the Property, such that Mr. Smith holds an inchoate dower interest pursuant to
Ohio law. See R.C. § § 2103.02.
Even when unopposed, there needs to be merit—a colorable legal basis—for the relief
requested from a bankruptcy court. See In re Pace, 569 B.R. 264, 268 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2017)
(analyzing LBR 9013-1(d) and concluding that despite a motion being unopposed, the Court
“retains that authority and obligation to review [debtor’s] motion and determine whether it has
merit.” (quoting In re Beauvais, No. BK14-40365, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 2727, at *2, 2014 WL
2708302, at *1 n.1 (Bankr. D. Neb. June 11, 2014) (citations omitted))). “The public expects, and
has a right to expect, that an order of a court is a judge’s certification that the result is proper and
justified under the law.” In re Pace at 268-69 (quoting In re Evans, 153 B.R. 960, 968 (Bankr.
E.D. Pa. 1993) (quoting In re Delaware River Stevedores, 147 B.R. 864, 869-70 (Bankr. E.D. Pa.
1992))). In short, this Court has “the authority to consider the merits of the Motion regardless of
whether objections were raised.” In re Pace at 269. And, on this Motion, the Debtors have the
burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the liens are avoidable under
§ 522(f)(1)(A). Id. (quoting In re Loucks, No. 11-33747, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 377, at *3, 2012 WL
260383, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2012) (citing Lee v. Bank One, N.A. (In re Lee), 249 B.R.
864, 867 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000))).
In order for a judgment lien to be avoided under § 522(f), three requirements must be met,
which are: “(1) there was a fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property; (2) the lien
impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled; and (3) the lien is a judicial
lien.” In re Dulaney, 666 B.R. 178, 184-85 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2024) (quoting Wilding v.
CitiFinancial Consumer Fin. Svcs., Inc. (In re Wilding), 475 F.3d 428, 431 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing
Culver, LLC v. Chiu (In re Chiu), 304 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also In re Jerew, 415
B.R. 303, 306 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009))). Focusing on the first element, the Supreme Court of the
United States has “held that section ‘522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a debtor to have
possessed an interest to which a lien attached, before it attached, to avoid the fixing of the lien on
that interest.’ ” In re Jaber, 406 B.R. 756, 762 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009) (quoting Farey v.
Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. 291, 301 (1991)). In addition, the term “judicial lien,” which is what can be
avoided, is defined in § 101(36) as a “lien obtained by judgment, levy, sequestration, or other legal
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 26

7
or equitable process or proceeding.” Reviewing the plain language of the statute initially suggests
that if there is some reason under state law that a lien does not attach to the “debtor’s interest in
the property” or is not presently enforceable, then § 522(f)(1)(A) might not permit avoidance.
However, this presents a thorny issue, which is that if the judgment lien does not technically attach
or might not be presently enforceable under applicable state law, and if not avoided on that basis,
it could still be a “cloud” on title that practically, if not economically, will impair the ability of a
debtor to have free and clear title to their property in the future.
B. 	A Split Amongst Courts Over Avoiding Unenforceable Judicial Liens
Not surprisingly, there appears to be a split amongst the courts over whether a judgment
lien that might not attach or be enforceable under applicable state law can nevertheless be avoided
under § 522(f)(1)(A). For an in-depth discussion of this issue and analysis of this split, please see
In re Pettengill, 635 B.R. 842, 845 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021) (analyzing whether a judgment
recorded in Florida can be avoided pursuant to § 522(f)(1) because the homestead exemption under
Florida’s Constitution “prevents a recorded judgment from becoming a lien against, fixing to, or
impairing homestead property.”). Therein, United States Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin walks
through the definition of a “lien” under § 101(37), the concept of “fixing” of the “lien,” and
whether a “lien” actually “impairs” the homestead exemption. Id. at 845-48. Of particular
applicability to the present situation is the following passage:
The instinctual analysis is to simply conclude that judgments recorded
against Florida homesteads, because they are not “liens” under Florida law, cannot
be avoided under § 522(f)(1). This straightforward approach is appealing to those
courts that deny § 522(f)(1) relief. See, e.g., Cannon [v. Cannon], 254 B.R. [773,]
777-78 [(S.D. Fla. 2000)]. But the inquiry should not end there because, though the
Florida Constitution’s express language prevents judgments from becoming liens
under Florida law, the Bankruptcy Code contains its own definition of “lien.”
Under the Bankruptcy Code, a “lien” is a “charge against or interest in
property to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation.” 11 U.S.C.
§ 101(37).
This definition of “liens” suggests that both unenforceable
“charge[s] 	against” 	property 	and 	enforceable 	“interest[s] 	in”
property fall within its scope. That interpretation is bolstered by the
legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act which itself states
that the definition of lien is “very broad” and “includes inchoate
liens.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 25 (1978); H.R. Rep. 95-595, at 312
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 26

8
(1977). We agree . . . that unenforceable liens may be avoided under
§ 522(f)(1).
CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan (In re O'Sullivan), 841 F.3d 786, 789 (8th
Cir. 2016). The broad definition of “lien” includes a “charge,” which is a general
term that encompasses, among other things, a “claim.” Charge, Black’s Law
Dictionary 211 (5th ed. 1984) (defining the noun “charge” as “an incumbrance,
lien, or claim”). The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” as a “right to payment,
whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed,
contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or
unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).
When a creditor records a judgment in the Florida public records, the
recording results in a claim against the purported homestead property. As a claim,
the recorded judgment asserts a “right to payment,” albeit a contingent one, subject
to the debtor’s ability to successfully assert homestead rights under Florida law. See
Fla. Stat. § 222.01. Consequently, a recorded judgment, irrespective of its present
enforceability, is a prototypical example of a “charge” and falls within the
Bankruptcy Code’s definition of a “lien.”
Id. at 845-46 (emphasis added). Although this Court does not need to, at this point, opine on what
it believes to be the correct outcome in applying § 522(f)(1)(A) (given that nobody opposed the
Motion), the Court finds this analysis persuasive.
In this case, to hold that § 522(f)(1)(A) does not permit avoidance of unenforceable
judgment liens of record would create a situation in which the Debtors could end up with several
certificates of judgment remaining of record that could cause problems with a title company later
on, yet the underlying debts have been discharged such that the creditors cannot take any future
enforcement action and those liens of record have no effect. In other words, there is no benefit to
anyone of the unenforceable liens remaining of record, yet they could cause future issues, all due
to a plain language or “instinctual” reading of § 522(f)(1)(A) that would preclude the avoidance
of unenforceable liens. That outcome does not make sense and is concerning, particularly when
the creditor has not contested the avoidance. The Court, however, understands why there appears
to be a split over this issue. Either way, in this case the Motion presents a colorable basis to grant
the relief requested by the Debtors notwithstanding that certain of the judgment liens they seek to
avoid appear to be unenforceable, either because Mr. Smith’s dower interest in the Property is
inchoate and a judgment lien cannot be enforced against that interest, or because the judgment
liens at issue have gone dormant and the underlying debt has been discharged such the creditors
could not file new certificates of judgment.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 26

9
C. 	Ohio Law on Judgment Liens, Dower Interests, and Dormancy
Under Ohio law, a judgment only becomes a lien once a certificate of judgment is filed in
the court of common pleas for the county in which the real property is situated. See In re Jerew,
415 B.R. at 306 (citing R.C. § 2329.02). Thus, certificates of judgment filed only in a municipal
court do not create a judgment lien.11 In addition, once filed with the court of common pleas,
certificates of judgment become dormant after five (5) years if not renewed. R.C. § 2329.07. A
certificate of judgment only attaches to property owned by the debtor in the county in which it is
filed. In re Jaber, 406 B.R. 756, 763 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009) (citing Verba v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.,
851 F.2d 811, 814 (6th Cir. 1988); Feinstein v. Rogers, 2 Ohio App. 3d 96, 98, 440 N.E.2d 1207,
1210 (10th Dist. 1981)). And certificates of judgment do not attach to property acquired by the
judgment debtor after the certificate of judgment is filed. Bank of Ohio v. Lawrence, 161 Ohio St.
543, Syllabus ¶ 2 (1954) (“The filing of a certificate of a judgment in the office of the Clerk of the
Common Pleas Court in accordance with . . . (Section 2329.02, Revised Code), does not create a
lien on after-acquired land of the judgment debtor, unless the certificate is refiled after the
acquisition of such property and before disposition.”).
With regard to the certificates of judgment filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Shelby
County, Ohio, which are solely against Mr. Smith, the issue as to enforcement is that, unless
Schedule A/B and the Shelby County Auditor’s records are incorrect, he holds only an inchoate
dower interest in Ms. Smith’s interest in the Property. This is based on the presumption that Mr.
and Ms. Smith are married as a joint bankruptcy case can only be filed by a married couple. See
11 U.S.C. § 302(a). And because Mr. Smith has only an inchoate dower interest in the Property
pursuant to R.C. § 2103.02, under Supreme Court of Ohio precedent, a lien cannot attach to his
inchoate dower interest. Gilbert v. Castor (In re Castor), 99 B.R. 807, 811 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio
1989) (Clark, J.) (citing Geiselman v. Wise, 137 Ohio St. 93, 93, 28 N.E.2d 199, 200, syllabus ¶ 2
(1940) (holding “[a]n inchoate dower interest cannot be reached by a creditors[.]”12); Oberlin Bank
11 Not attached are the praecipes for certificates of judgment filed with the Sidney Municipal Court for the purpose of
obtaining certificates of judgment to transfer and file with the Court of Common Pleas for Shelby County, Ohio to
create the judgment liens under Ohio law, which are attached and are being avoided.
12 In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in 1952 that “[d]uring the lifetime of both spouses, dower is a
contingent inchoate right and becomes vested in the surviving spouse only upon the death of the other spouse.”
Goodman v. Gerstle, 158 Ohio St. 353, 358 (1952). Further, “[a] person does not acquire a vested right to a dower
interest in the property of this spouse until the latter’s death.” Id. at 360.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 26

10
Co. v. Adams, Nos. 3872, 3880, 1986 WL 841, at *2 (9th Dist. Jan. 15, 1986) (citing Geiselman,
and stating that “[i]It is a well settled rule of law that a spouse’s inchoate right of dower cannot be
reached by creditors.”); see also Good v. Crist, 23 Ohio App. 484, 490 (12th Dist. 1926) (“It has
been frequently held, and it is the law, that an unassigned dower is not subject to levy and
execution, and is not subject to a judgment lien.”)). R.C. § 2329.02 provides that a judgment “shall
be a lien upon lands and tenements of each judgment debtor[.]” In conjunction, R.C. § 2329.01(A)
explains that “[l]ands and tenements, including vested legal interests therein, . . . shall be subject
to the payment of debts, and liable to be taken on execution and sold . . . .” The Supreme Court of
Ohio held in Culp v. Jacobs, 123 Ohio St. 109, 113 (1930), that the amendment to Ohio’s judgment
lien statute in 1925 limited “the interest in lands and tenements liable to be taken on execution to
‘vested legal interests therein’ . . . .” (cited in Basil v. Vincello, 50 Ohio St.3d 185, Syllabus ¶ 1
(1990)). Accordingly, a judgment lien does not attach “to an equitable interest in the real estate of
a judgment debtor.” Jacobs, 123 Ohio St. at 112. An inchoate right of dower is not a vested legal
interest in lands and tenements for purposes of levy and execution. Thus, if true that Mr. Smith is
not a fee owner, the certificates of judgment solely against him did not create “judicial liens” on
the Property, such that there is arguably nothing to avoid, and the first element of the test to apply
§ 522(f)(1) would not be met with respect to those certificates of judgment, were it not for the
broader federal definition of “lien” as discussed above. Although Mr. Smith can claim an
exemption in his dower interest, which is property of the estate, that is a separate issue from
whether a lien impairs that interest. In re Jaber, 406 B.R. at 762 (“Whether the creditors’ lien
impairs that exemption is another matter entirely.”).
In addition to the foregoing issue with respect to Mr. Smith’s dower interest, any
certificates of judgment that became dormant before the Debtors filed bankruptcy might otherwise
also fail to qualify for avoidance because they do not presently impair Ms. Smith’s homestead
exemption. Once dormant, an Ohio judgment lien is no longer effective. See Auto Now Acceptance
Co., LLC v. Brickley, 2020-Ohio-3447, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.) (“the law governing revived judgments
indicates that a revived judgment is not a continuation of a dormant judgment, but in essence
creates a new judgment that a judgment creditor may seek to enforce. A dormant judgment ‘may
not be enforced, and is thus without legal effect, unless the judgment is revived in accordance with
R.C. 2325.15.’ ” (citing Martin v. Stoddard (In re Stoddard), 248 B.R. 111, 116-17 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio 2000) (citing 62 Ohio Jur.3d Judgments, § 153)). Thus, although a judgment lien can be
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 26

11
revived within a certain time period, pursuant to R.C. §§ 2325.15, 2325.17, and 2325.18, the case
law provides that a revived lien does not retroactively revive the lien that went dormant. Further,
an intervening discharge of the underlying debt means the judgment lien can no longer be revived
following a successful bankruptcy.
Although there could be a situation in which certificates of judgment older than five (5)
years may have been renewed by other actions set forth in divisions (B) or (C) of R.C. § 2329.07,
here the Debtors have alleged that the judgment liens of NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. and
SAC Finance, Inc. were not renewed and that Debtors are only listing them “as an abundance of
caution.” Mot. at 3; see R.C. § 2329.07(B)(1)(a)-(d) (providing that “[a] judgment that is not in
favor of the state is dormant and shall not operate as a lien against the estate of the judgment debtor
unless one of the following occurs within five years from the date of the judgment or any renewal
of the judgment, whichever is later: (a) An execution on a judgment is issued; . . . [;] (b) A
certificate of judgment . . . is issued and filed . . . [;] (c) An order of garnishment is issued . . . [;
or] (d) A proceeding in aid of execution is commenced . . . .”).
III. 	Conclusion
Notwithstanding that certain of the judgment liens might not be enforceable, because the
Motion is unopposed and because there is persuasive caselaw supporting the notion that Congress
intended that even unenforceable judicial liens can be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A) in order to
give the Debtors a clean slate, the Court will grant the Motion, in part, to avoid all of the judgment
liens that were identified in the Motion and for which the Debtors provided copies of the
certificates of judgment with the Proposed Order, as set forth below. Further, the Court will hold
this case open so that Debtors can file another motion to avoid judicial liens with respect to: (a)
the judgment lien they identified in the Motion, but for which no certificate of judgment was
provided and Schedule E/F indicates it is actually an unsecured claim held by a different creditor;
and (b) the certificate of judgment attached to the proposed order, but not identified in the Motion
as a judgment lien to be avoided (as discussed below).
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted, in part,
and the following certificates of judgment (identified in paragraphs 1 through 3 immediately
below), which appear to not validly create or presently constitute liens against Mr. Smith’s dower
interest in the Property or against Ms. Smith’s fee simple interest in the Property because those
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 26

12
certificates of judgment are dormant, are nonetheless avoided upon entry of this order pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), as impairing the Debtors’ exemptions in the Property, as follows:
1. 	Wilson Memorial Hospital: Sidney Municipal Court Case 18CVF01176 in the
amount of $3,323.65, judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court
on March 18, 2019 (19L000105) and renewed January 16, 2024 (24JL000037).
This lien is solely against Mr. Smith.
2. 	SAC Finance, Inc.: Sidney Municipal Court Case 08CVF01556 in the amount of
$3,740.88, judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court on January
12, 2009 (09JL000029). This lien is solely against Mr. Smith and has expired and
has not been renewed.
3. 	NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., Sidney Municipal Court Case 08CVF01720, in
the amount of $1,748.66, and filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court
on September 3, 2009 (09JL000580) and possibly revived sometime in 2020. This
lien has expired and has not been renewed.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted, in part, with respect
to the remaining six judgment liens identified in the Motion, evidenced by the certificates of
judgment attached hereto, which are avoided upon entry of this order pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 522(f)(1)(A), as impairing the Debtors’ exemptions in the Property, as follows:
Lienholder Name 	Judgment Lien Number /
Date
Amount
Wilson Memorial Hospital 	19JL000324/24JL000236
June 28, 2019 / Apr. 1, 2024
$2,296.32
Midland Funding, LLC 	22JL000061
Jan. 24, 2022
$1,550.00
ADLP Investments LLC Series 1 	23JL001192
Nov. 6, 2023
$1,125.23
DNF Associates LLC 	23JL001197
Nov. 13, 2023
$770.69
Wilson Memorial Hospital 	15JL000556/24JL000425
Aug. 31, 2015 / July 29, 2024
$1,381.10
LVNV Funding, LLC 	24JL000500
Aug. 15, 2024
$1,992.31
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Debtors may present a certified copy
of this Order to the Common Pleas Court of Shelby County, Ohio, which shall act as a release of
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 26

13
the above-listed judgment liens held by Wilson Memorial Hospital, SAC Finance, Inc., NCO
Portfolio Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, DNF Associates, and
ADLP Investments LLC;
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is denied, in part, with regard
to avoidance of the following certificates of judgment, the first of which the Debtors have not
provided the certificate of judgment for, and the second of which the Debtors did not identify in
their Motion:
A. 	LVNV Funding LLC: Sidney Municipal Court Case 24CVF00951 in the amount
of $658.86, judgment filed with “the Sidney County Clerk of Courts on June 3,
2025.” Mot. at 3 (Ninth Priority). There was no certificate of judgment provided
with the Proposed Order for this alleged lien13 and at least by virtue of matching
the dollar amount, this debt appears to be listed on the Debtors’ Schedule E/F as a
non-priority unsecured debt under the name of a different creditor, “Avant,
LLC/Webbank.” Doc. 1 at 31, ¶ 4.3.
B. 	Wilson Memorial Hospital: Sidney Municipal Court Case 24CVF00017 in the
amount of $2,615.21, judgment filed with the Shelby County Common Pleas Court
on April 18, 2024 (24JL000283). This lien is solely against Mr. Smith. However,
regardless of the merits, the Court is not in a position to avoid this lien because
there was no mention of this judgment lien in the Motion (it was only attached to
the proposed order submitted by Debtors’ counsel), and therefore no notice was
provided to the judgment creditor of the Debtors’ intention and basis to avoid this
judgment lien. Furthermore, Debtors’ counsel should not include relief in a
proposed order that was not requested in the Motion.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the partial denial of the Motion is without
prejudice, and Debtors shall have twenty-one (21) days following the entry of this Order, to file
another motion to avoid the liens not avoided herein through this Order (identified in paragraphs
A and B immediately above) in the event that Debtors believe they have a colorable basis to do so
13 As noted above, the certificate of judgment allegedly “also filed” based on this judgment, 24JL000500 filed on
August 15, 2024, appears to actually be based on a different judgment (see Mot. at 2 (Fifth Priority)) and is being
avoided.
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 13 of 26

14
under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). After twenty-one (21) days have passed, if no further motion
is filed, the case may be closed by the Clerk if it is otherwise appropriate to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to Default List Plus:
• 	Wilson Memorial Hospital, c/o Statutory Agent Samuel R.S. Coffey, Esq., 5726 Red Coach
Rd, Dayton, OH 45429
• 	Wilson Health, c/o The Shelby County Memorial Hospital Association, 915 Michigan St,
Sidney, OH 45365
• 	SAC Finance, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125,
Columbus, OH 43219
• 	NCO Portfolio Management, c/o CT Corporation System, 4400 Easton Commons Way,
Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43219
• 	Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. c/o Canon Business Process
Services, Inc., 7530 Lucerne Drive, Suite 303, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130
• 	LVNV Funding LLC, c/o Corporation Service Company, 1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400,
Columbus, OH 43215
• 	DNF Associates, c/o Cogency Global, Inc., 3958-D Brown Park Drive, Hilliard, OH 43026
• 	ADLP Investments LLC, c/o Registered Agen Solutions, Inc. 4400 Easton Commons Way,
Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43219
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 14 of 26

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 GS6010
Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
09 SEP -3 AM 9:59
MICHELE K. MUMFORD SHELBY COUNTY CLERK
Case Number 08CVF01720
0952580
NCO PORTFOLIO MANAGMENT, INC. ASSIGNEE OF SEARS 507 PRUDENTIAL RD. HORSHAM, PA 19044 Judgment Creditor
VS.
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA S. SMITH, AKA SHEILA ALE ALEXANDER AKA SHEILA K. SIMPSON 519 N. MAIN AVE. SIDNEY, OH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced 11/26/2008
Date of Judgment
01/27/2009
Amount of Judgment 1748.66
Interest Rate 5% From 1/27/2009
Amount of Costs
$211.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, 08/11/2009.
Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk
By Lindsey Billenstein
AUG 1 3 2009
Page 1 of 1
8/11/2009
BK 21
Pg 409
CJ

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 08-2664
Desc Main Document Page 16 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
COMMON PLEAS COURT 2009 JAN 12 AM IO: 23
MICHELE K MUMFORD SHELBY COUNTY CLERK
Case Number 08CVF01556
SAC FINANCE, INC. C/O RACHEL J. MASON 5181 NATORP BLVD. SUITE 202 CINCINNATI, OH 45249 Judgment Creditor
0911 000029
VS.
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
ROBERT SMITH 519 N. MAIN AVE. SIDNEY, OH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced 10/28/2008
Date of Judgment
12/11/2008
Amount of Judgment 3740.88
Interest Rate 20.99% From 12/11/2008
Amount of Costs
$111.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, 12/30/2008.
Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk
By Lindau Bollenst.
CJ
Page 1 of 1
12/30/2008 BK 20 P6 415

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32
Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09
1
Desc Main Document Page 17 of 26
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St, Mailing: 201 West Poplar St/4 JAN 16 PM 3: 12 Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011 MICHELE K MUMFORD SHELBY OO. CLERK AF COUDES Case Number 18CVF01176
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 915 WEST MICHIGAN AVE PO BOX 966 SDINEY OH 45365
Judgment Creditor
VS.
24JL000037
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
ROBERT L SMITH 305 S PIKE ST ANNAOH 45302
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
09/04/2018
Date of Judgment
01/24/2019
Amount of Judgment
$3323.65
Interest Rate 4% From 01/24/2019 Amount of Costs
$116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Friday, December 29, 2023.
1
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By:
Justina ansley
Deputy Clerk
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 12/16/23)
January 16, 2024 01/16/2024
1

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 18 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
2019 MAR 18 PM 2:52
MICHELE K. MUMFORD SHELBY COUNTY CLERK
Case Number 18CVF01176
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 915 WEST MICHIGAN AVE PO BOX 966 SDINEY OH 45365 Judgment Creditor
VS.
19JL 000105
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
- -
- ROBERT L SMITH 305 S PIKE ST ANNA OH 45302
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
09/04/2018
Date of Judgment
01/24/19
Amount of Judgment 3323.65
Interest Rate 4% From 01/24/19 Amount of Costs 116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Friday, February 22, 2019.
Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk Kimberly Beam
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 8/24/16)
March 2019

1
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 19 of 26
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
2024 AUG 15 AMIO: 19
MICHLLE K. MUMFORD CURRY CO CLERK OF COURTS
Case Number 22CVF01324
LVNV FUNDING LLC C/O 55 BEATTIE PLACE SUITE 100 GREENVILLE SC 29601
Judgment Creditor
24JL000500
VS.
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN AVE SIDNEYOH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
11/21/2022
Date of Judgment Amount of Judgment $1992.31
Interest Rate 5% From 02/14/2023 Amount of Costs $116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Wednesday, January 03, 2024.
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By: Kimberly Beam
Deputy Clerk
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 12/16/23)
August 2024
L.P. 8/15/2024
02/14/2023

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main
Document Page 20 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court 110 West Court St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
·FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
2024 JUL 29 AM IO: 34
MICHELE K. MUMFORD Case Number(15CVF00532)
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL P.O. BOX 966 SIDNEY OH 45365
Judgment Creditor
VS.
24J2000425
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN AVE SIDNEYOH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
04/23/2015
Date of Judgment
07/09/15
Amount of Judgment 1381.10
Interest Rate
3.00 % From 07/09/2015 Amount of Costs
$116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Wednesday, July 03, 2024.
.
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By: Kimberly@eam
Deputy Clerk
CJ.doc (updated 2/28/2024) ----
July 2024

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 £ Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Filed 09/18/26 Desc Main Document Page 21 of 26
FILED COMMON PLEAS COLET
Sidney Municipal Court 110 West Court St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
2024 APR -1 AM IO: 35
SHELBY CO Case Number 19CVF00429/
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 915 WEST MICHIGAN AVE PO BOX 966 SDINEY OH 45365
Judgment Creditor
VS.
2456 236
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN SIDNEYOH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
03/08/2019
Date of Judgment
05/08/2019
Amount of Judgment
2296.32
Interest Rate 5% From 05/08/2019
Amount of Costs
116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Friday, March 01, 2024.
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By:
Justina avaler
Deputy Clerk
CJ.doc (updated 2/28/2024)
APRIL 2024

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main 174314 Document Page 22 of 26
FILED COMTON PLEAS COURT
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
2020 NOV -6 AM IO: 21 S
Case Number 23CVF00436
ADLP INVESTMENTS LLC SERIES 1 C/O SLOVIN & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA 2060 READING RD., SUITE 420 CINCINNATI OH 45202 Judgment Creditor
23JL 1192
VS.
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN AVE SIDNEY OH 45365 Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
04/10/2023
Date of Judgment Amount of Judgment $1125.23
Interest Rate 5% From 05/25/2023 Amount of Costs
$116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Friday, October 06, 2023.
--
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By: Paula Butterfield
Deputy Clerk
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 8/24/16)
November 2023
L.P. 11/6/2023
05/25/2023

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 23 of 26
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
15 AUG 31 AM IO: 37
MICHELE K. MUMFORD SHELBY COUNTY CLERK
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL P.O. BOX 966 SIDNEY, OH 45365 Judgment Creditor VS.
Case Number 15CVF00532 15 JUODOS54
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN AVE SIDNEY, OH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced 04-23-15
Date of Judgment 07/09/2015
Amount of Judgment 1381.10 Interest Rate 3.0000 From 07-09-15 Amount of Costs
116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
1, Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, 08/12/2015.
Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk Trong Sather By
CJ _- 1219074952.doc
Page 1 of 1
August 2015 8/12/2015

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 24 of 26
FILED
Sidney Municipal Court COMMON PLEAS COURT Location: 110 West Court2019 JUN 28 AM 10: 02 Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 MICHELE A. D.765)
Phone: 937-498-0011SHELBY COUNTY Case Number 19CVF00429LERK
WILSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 915 WEST MICHIGAN AVE PO BOX 966 SDINEY OH 45365 Judgment Creditor
vs.
19JL324
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
.-
SHEILA K SMITH 519 N MAIN SIDNEY OH 45365
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
03/08/2019
Date of Judgment
05/08/19
Amount of Judgment 2296.32
Interest Rate 5% From 05/08/19 Amount of Costs 116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Friday, May 24, 2019.
Bonnie K. Gold, Clerk
By Kimberly Beam
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 8/24/16)
1
1
JUNE 2019

Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09 Desc Main Document Page 25 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
Case Number 23CVF.00019
DNF ASSOCIATES LLC 225 NORTH FOREST RD #110 GETZVILLE NY 14068 Judgment Creditor
vs. SHEILA SMITH 519 N MAIN AVE SIDNEY OH 45365
23JL001197
RUAA CF COURTS
2023 NOV 13 PM 12: 43
COMMOM PLEAS GOURT FILED
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
01/10/2023
Date of Judgment
04/27/2023
Amount of Judgment $770.69
Interest Rate 3% From 04/27/23
Amount of Costs
$116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
I, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Wednesday, October 04, 2023.
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By: Paula Butterfield :
Deputy Clerk
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 8/24/16)
November 13, 2023 11/13/2023
< MUNFORD

-
Case 3:25-bk-32544 Doc 32 Filed 09/18/26 Entered 09/18/26 11:42:09
Desc Main Document Page 26 of 26
Sidney Municipal Court Location: 110 West Court St. Mailing: 201 West Poplar St. Sidney OH 45365 Phone: 937-498-0011
FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT
2022 JAN 24 AM IO: 42
MICHELE K. MUMFORD CaSeENY S. CLERK OF COURTS ber 20CVF00243
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC DOING BUSINESS IN OHIO AS MIDLAND FUNDING DE LLC 350 CAMINO DE LE REINA, SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 Judgment Creditor
VS.
22JL000061 CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
SHEILA SMITH 519 N. MAIN SIDNEY OH 45365 Judgment Debtor
Date Action Commenced
02/14/2020
Date of Judgment
08/21/2020
Amount of Judgment $1,550.00
Interest Rate 5% From 08/21/2020 Amount of Costs $116.00
STATE OF OHIO, SHELBY COUNTY, SS:
1, Tony D. Kremer, Clerk of Sidney Municipal Court, Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio, and in whose custody the files, journals and records of said Court are required by the laws of the State of Ohio to be kept, do hereby certify that the foregoing is taken and copied from the original records of said Court and that it is a true and correct Certificate of said Judgment.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court, Monday, October 18, 2021.
Tony D. Kremer, Clerk By: CarlosChamps
Deputy Clerk
CJ.DOC (LAST REVISED 8/24/16)
Jan. 2022 1/24/2022
20-16301