Catalanotto v. Byrd, 2016 Ohio 2815

Neighbors Catalanotto and Byrd had a long-running feud that produced multiple claims and counterclaims (trespass, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others) and a jury trial resulting largely in verdicts for Byrd on counterclaims.
Jury awarded Byrd punitive damages on assault and compensatory damages on emotional distress; Catalanottos moved under Civ.R. 50(B) to overturn punitive damages and to challenge award of attorney fees.
Trial court vacated the punitive-damage award but allowed attorney fees; after an attorney-fee hearing it awarded Byrd $15,000.
On first appeal (Catalanotto I) this Court held the Civ.R. 50(B) motion was procedurally defective to the extent it attacked damages and remanded, instructing the trial court to place the parties back as if the erroneous judgment had not been entered and to decide procedural or Civ.R. 59 relief.
On remand the trial court denied Catalanottos’ Civ.R. 50(B) motion and denied their request for a new trial as untimely under former Civ.R. 59(B) (14 days), although the amended Civ.R. 59(B) (28 days) had become effective before the postjudgment ruling.
This appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of the new-trial request as untimely; the Court of Appeals reverses and remands for the trial court to consider the merits of the Civ.R. 59 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Catalanottos’ motion for new trial timely?	Their request (filed June 14, 2013) was within the 28-day period of amended Civ.R.59(B).	The trial court relied on former 14-day rule to deny as untimely.	The 28-day amended rule applied to pending cases; the request was timely.
Which version of Civ.R.59(B) governs postjudgment proceedings after effective date?	Apply amended Civ.R.59(B) under Civ.R.86 to all further proceedings in pending actions.	Trial court treated the earlier 14-day rule as controlling because judgment entered earlier.	Civ.R.86 requires application of amended rule to further proceedings absent infeasibility or injustice; amended 28-day rule governs here.
Could the trial court deny as untimely without expressly finding injustice or infeasibility?	No — court must apply amended rule or make a finding why not.	Court denied as untimely without that finding.	Trial court abused discretion by denying as untimely without applying amended rule or making required findings.
What is the appropriate remedy?	Remand for trial court to consider merits of new-trial/Civ.R.59 motion.	(Byrd did not contest remand on timing.)	Court reverses and remands for the trial court to address merits in first instance.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review scope and deference to trial court)
Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying amended procedural rule to pending cases does not necessarily prejudice opposing party)