2018 Ohio 1757
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Robert J. Berryhill worked as senior vice-president for Carnegie Management under an independent contractor agreement that purportedly granted him a 10% interest in LLCs for projects he secured; he was terminated in 2009 for illegally receiving project funds.
- Mary Berryhill (his wife) sued the Khouris and Carnegie in 2010 seeking the 10% profit distributions; defendants counterclaimed alleging Berryhill’s fraud and that Mary assisted by placing distributions in her name.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment limiting recovery for distributions after the date embezzlement began and later found Berryhill had fraudulently induced his employment (contract void), awarded disgorgement and large attorney-fee and costs awards.
- This court affirmed those rulings in Berryhill I; Berryhill later pled guilty to federal fraud-related offenses and was incarcerated.
- After additional motions, the trial court granted a later motion for partial summary judgment quantifying the equitable remedy; Berryhill filed Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (3) motions to reopen, which the trial court denied; Berryhill appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-disbanding assignment/entry was valid under Sup.R.49.03 | January 20, 2015 entry invalid because commercial docket was disbanded | Entry was issued before docket was disbanded (Jan.21) and thus valid | Court: Entry valid; no defect in timing or assignment |
| Whether administrative/presiding judge and retired visiting judge had authority to rule after docket changes | Visiting judge lacked authority to retain/decide cases after disbanding; administrative judge lacked authority to reassign | Presiding/administrative judge has authority under Sup.R.3.02/4 and related rules to transfer/assign and rule | Court: Administrative/presiding judge had authority; assignment and rulings valid |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(1) relief (mistake/excusable neglect) was warranted | Berryhill asserted mistake/inadvertence and inability to present evidence (incarceration, notary issues) | Prior findings of fraud and appellate affirmance defeat a meritorious defense; claims are barred by res judicata/law of the case | Court: Denial affirmed—Berryhill failed to show a meritorious defense; relief not warranted |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(3) relief (fraud/misrepresentation) was warranted | Berryhill alleged appellees lied/misrepresented facts to court, warranting relief | Fraud issues already adjudicated and affirmed on appeal; doctrines of res judicata and law of the case bar re-litigation | Court: Denial affirmed—claims barred and meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (standard that trial-court denial of Civ.R. 60(B) is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, grounds under rule, timeliness)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (equitable rescission remedy aim: return parties to original position)