Arms Trucking Co. v. Fed. Natl. Mtge. Assn.
2013 Ohio 5192
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Arms Trucking sued five defendants, including Arthur and Audrey Braun, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; the Brauns answered and filed a counterclaim.
- Arms Trucking voluntarily dismissed the other defendants, leaving only Arms Trucking’s claim against the Brauns and the Brauns’ counterclaim.
- Arms Trucking moved to dismiss the Brauns’ counterclaim; on January 18, 2013 the trial court granted that motion and dismissed the counterclaim but did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language.
- Arms Trucking’s underlying claim against the Brauns remained pending, so the January 18 entry did not dispose of the entire action.
- The Brauns filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the January 18 dismissal; the trial court denied relief on May 1, 2013.
- The Brauns appealed; the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders at issue were not final, appealable judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the Brauns’ counterclaim and the subsequent denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief are final, appealable orders | Arms Trucking: the dismissal of the counterclaim and denial of relief are proper rulings and appealable | Brauns: sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) from the dismissal and appealed denial | Court: Neither the dismissal nor the denial were final orders because the action remained pending and no Civ.R. 54(B) certification was made; Civ.R. 60(B) applies only to final judgments, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1989) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final order)
- Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 1999) (requirements for final, appealable judgments under R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B))
- Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 20 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1985) (orders that do not adjudicate liabilities of all parties or include Civ.R. 54(B) language are interlocutory)
- Harter v. Wadsworth-Rittman Hosp., 64 Ohio App.3d 26 (9th Dist. 1989) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to obtain relief from a nonfinal summary judgment)
- Lee v. Joseph Horne Co., Inc., 99 Ohio App.3d 319 (8th Dist. 1995) (a judgment vacating a nonfinal earlier judgment is itself interlocutory)
- Matrka v. Stephens, 77 Ohio App.3d 518 (10th Dist. 1991) (same principle regarding nonfinal judgments and appeals)