Brooke v. James R. Rea Ents., Inc.
2011 Ohio 1531
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Brooke sued James R. Rea Enterprises, Inc. and James Rea after a June 5, 2009 injury outside Rea’s establishment.
- Defendants failed to answer; Brooke moved for default judgment on December 23, 2009 and damages hearing was set.
- A February 19, 2010 hearing was attended by Brooke, Rea, and Lehman; the court later entered default judgment against Rea and Rea Enterprises on March 19, 2010 for $58,807.15 plus $150,000 for pain and suffering.
- Rea and Rea Enterprises filed Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5) relief from judgment on May 14, 2010; the trial court denied on May 27, 2010.
- The sole assignment of error challenges the Civ.R. 60(B) denial; the trial court’s ruling was affirmed, with a dissent criticizing denial of relief from a substantial judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Civ.R. 60(B) motion was properly denied | Brooke argues Rea showed excusable neglect or extraordinary grounds | Rea contends excusable neglect or 60(B)(5) warranted relief | No; trial court did not abuse discretion, 60(B) not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part GTE test for relief from judgment (merit, grounds, timeliness))
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (meritorious defense sufficient for 60(B) relief, not proof of impending victory)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (excusable neglect generally not established by mere receipt of complaint)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defining abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)