Bradley v. Blume
2017 Ohio 8601
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Larry W. Bradley, incarcerated, filed three pro se tort/conspiracy suits in Scioto C.P. Ct. (cases 13CIH224, 13CIH225, 13CIH227) alleging defendants (attorney T. Kevin Blume and his firm, Sam Bradley, and Preston Walters) conspired in probate/guardianship proceedings to deprive him of inheritance.
- Defendants answered and Sam Bradley asserted a counterclaim against Larry. The complaints lacked notarizations and Larry produced no evidentiary support opposing summary judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits and exhibits; Larry filed a memorandum in opposition without supporting evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Larry’s claims but did not rule on Sam Bradley’s counterclaim and did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language (no express determination of no just reason for delay).
- The trial court consolidated the three cases; Larry appealed the summary-judgment entries to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s entries were not final appealable orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal challenges a final, appealable order | Bradley contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and the judgment was appealable | Defendants argued the trial court’s entries were not final because a counterclaim remained and Civ.R. 54(B) language was absent | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; order not final or appealable |
| Whether summary-judgment merits should be reviewed despite unresolved counterclaim | Bradley sought merits review of summary-judgment rulings | Defendants relied on procedural finality rules to preclude appellate review | Court declined to reach merits because appellate jurisdiction was lacking |
| Whether consolidated cases can be appealed piecemeal without Civ.R. 54(B) language | Bradley implicitly argued each case/order was appealable | Defendants argued consolidated claims must be resolved or trial court must state no just reason for delay | Court held consolidated claims are treated together; absent Civ.R. 54(B) language, partial adjudications are not final |
| Applicability of Civ.R. 54(B) when some claims remain pending | Bradley did not show Civ.R. 54(B) compliance | Defendants emphasized trial court’s failure to make express determination under Civ.R. 54(B) | Court required express Civ.R. 54(B) finding for partial judgment to be appealable and found none |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 138 Ohio St.3d 264, 6 N.E.3d 23 (2014) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (final order requires R.C. 2505.02 and, where applicable, Civ.R. 54(B))
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (orders disposing of fewer than all claims require Civ.R. 54(B) language to be final)
- Pokorny v. Tilby Dev. Co., 52 Ohio St.2d 183 (1977) (purpose of Civ.R. 54(B) to balance piecemeal appeals and injustice from delay)
- Whitaker v. Kear, 113 Ohio App.3d 611 (4th Dist. 1996) (claims in consolidated cases are considered together; partial adjudications not appealable absent Civ.R. 54(B))