Kuhlin v. Corner Bar (2013)
Decided September 20, 2013; Carroll County No. 12 CA 879. Complete official seven-page opinion retrieved 2026-10-17. The official cite-as caption is Kuhlin despite a narrative spelling variation.
Facts and holding
Following unsuccessful efforts to collect a substantial judgment against the bar, the court appointed a receiver over its assets including the liquor permit. The appellate court affirmed. The unpaid judgment and failed collection supported the exercise of receivership discretion (¶¶12–18).
Reasoning and practical impact
The Division’s exclusive authority to approve permit transfers did not prevent the court appointing a receiver. A later actual transfer still required Division approval (¶¶20–29). The court applied OAC 4301:1-1-14(A)(4) and distinguished receivership authority from an enforceable lender security interest, discussing banc-of-america-v-cooker-restaurant-oh-2006 consistently.
Current OAC 4301:1-1-14 retains the approved receiver-transfer path; current R.C. 4303.26 separately supplies transfer notice/tax conditions. A successful business-asset bid or receivership order alone does not complete permit transfer.
Later treatment
The full primary opinion and current rule were retrieved separately. Focused public review did not establish comprehensive subsequent appellate history or later merits treatment; these remain needs_verification. No blanket good-law conclusion follows from the opinion’s existence.
Applies in →
ohio · businesses-and-going-concerns · receivership-sales
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Read the full opinion and current law; later authority may limit this decision.