Bank of New York Mellon v. Belville
2017 Ohio 7772
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- The Bank of New York Mellon (plaintiff) filed a foreclosure complaint on August 30, 2016 against Janessa Belville (aka Janessa Kuhn) and Tracy Kuhn.
- Janessa was served September 9, 2016; Tracy was served September 19, 2016; their answer deadlines passed without filed answers.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment on November 4, 2016.
- On November 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for leave to file an answer instanter (post-deadline), alleging recently retained counsel and arguing excusable neglect.
- The trial court granted the default judgment on December 1, 2016 without ruling on the pending motion for leave to answer; judgment awarded $447,538.40 plus interest to plaintiff.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the court erred by entering default judgment without first addressing their Civ.R. 6(B) motion for leave to file an answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting default judgment without ruling on defendants’ post-deadline motion for leave to answer under Civ.R. 6(B) | Default judgment was proper because defendants failed to timely answer and no answer had been filed when plaintiff moved for default | The trial court should have considered defendants’ Civ.R. 6(B) motion showing excusable neglect and ruled on it before entering default judgment | Reversed and remanded: trial court must determine whether defendants showed excusable neglect under Civ.R. 6(B) and rule on the motion; if excusable neglect is not shown, the default may be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion Prod. Credit Assn. v. Cochran, 40 Ohio St.3d 265, 533 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio 1988) (standard: Civ.R. 6(B) determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 72 Ohio St.3d 464, 650 N.E.2d 1343 (Ohio 1995) (Civ.R. 6(B) excusable neglect standard is less stringent than Civ.R. 60(B))
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio St.3d 470, 605 N.E.2d 37 (Ohio 1992) (definition of neglect: conduct substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (used in defining neglect standard)