A dispute over alleged fraudulent property transfers within a family business relationship has resulted in an appellate court upholding a lower court’s decision to deny relief to the defendants. The case centers on claims that two individuals transferred real estate assets in order to hinder collection efforts on a previous judgment related to a failed business partnership.
The complaint was filed by David Morgensen in Warren County Court of Common Pleas, with the most recent opinion issued by the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio on March 2, 2026. The defendants are James and Rebekah Pullin, who are identified as Rebekah’s father and James’ father-in-law.
According to the court documents, the conflict began in June 2015 when Morgensen sued James Pullin after their business partnership ended unsuccessfully. That lawsuit resulted in an agreed judgment entry for $43,162 in favor of Morgensen. At that time, James and Rebekah Pullin jointly owned real estate known as the Midland Property. In March 2016, they sold this property for $148,000 and used the proceeds to purchase another home—the Waynesville Property—titling it solely in Rebekah’s name.
On September 11, 2017, Morgensen filed a new lawsuit alleging that this transfer was done with actual intent to defraud him and prevent collection of his earlier judgment. The complaint claimed that equity from the jointly owned Midland Property was shifted into Rebekah’s sole ownership through the purchase of the Waynesville Property. The Pullins sought dismissal or transfer of venue due to property location; eventually, both parties agreed to move proceedings from Clinton County to Warren County.
Shortly after this agreement but before it was officially recorded by the clerk, James Pullin filed for bankruptcy protection in federal court. This action triggered an automatic stay on proceedings against him personally but not against Rebekah or any action concerning her interest in real estate. The bankruptcy court later clarified that its stay did not apply to actions involving Rebekah or her properties.
After resolution of bankruptcy issues—including denial of Morgensen’s request for relief from stay—the case resumed at the trial level. Morgensen amended his complaint so that no relief was sought against James personally; instead, he pursued remedies only against relevant properties based on potential interests held by James or Rebekah.
In September 2018, after selling their Waynesville home and purchasing another residence (the Morrow Property), both Pullins held joint title with rights of survivorship. Following trial proceedings, a magistrate found evidence supporting claims of fraudulent asset transfer and awarded Morgensen an equitable lien against the Morrow Property for $43,162 plus statutory interest. Objections by the Pullins were overruled; final judgment was entered on June 17, 2020.
Nearly five years later—in June 2025—the Pullins moved to vacate this decision, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to bankruptcy proceedings and asserting no final appealable order had been entered. The Warren County court denied their motion citing res judicata (that such issues could have been raised earlier) and untimeliness under civil rules governing relief from judgments.
On appeal, the Pullins presented four main arguments: whether orders transferring cases between courts during bankruptcy are void; whether res judicata can bar assertion of violations regarding bankruptcy stays; whether creating liens post-bankruptcy discharge is void; and whether prior decisions constituted final orders eligible for execution.
The appellate opinion rejected all these arguments as meritless or unsupported by law. It emphasized that while federal bankruptcy law imposes automatic stays upon filing petitions, such stays apply only to debtors—not non-bankrupt co-defendants—and do not prevent actions against jointly owned or separately titled properties unless specifically ordered otherwise by bankruptcy courts. Furthermore, any errors relating to timing or process were deemed voidable rather than void outright—a distinction significant under prevailing Sixth Circuit precedent cited by the panel.
The opinion also addressed additional claims raised by the Pullins regarding procedural matters such as finality of orders and preparation of judgment entries. It concluded that all substantive issues had been resolved at trial level and nothing remained pending which would preclude enforcement actions like foreclosure based on equitable liens imposed for fraudulent conveyance.
Ultimately, judges Robert A. Hendrickson (Presiding Judge), Mike Powell (Judge), and Melena S. Siebert (Judge) concurred in affirming denial of relief for James and Rebekah Pullin. Attorneys involved included Tyler J. Hoffer representing appellee David Morgensen and Andrew M. Engel along with Marc E. Dann representing appellants James and Rebekah Pullin. The case identification number is CA2025-08-071.
Source: 2026Ohio695_Morgensen_v_Pullin_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
