Children's Hosp. v. Paluch, 2012 Ohio 4137

Akron Children’s Hospital filed a July 2, 2010 action to collect $512.80 for medical services allegedly provided to Paluch’s children; Paluch answered denying the claim.
The trial court granted the hospital’s first motion for summary judgment on September 27, 2010, after extending Paluch’s response time, but Paluch sought to vacate the ruling as premature.
The hospital filed an amended complaint in November 2010 alleging services were provided to Paluch himself; Paluch answered denying those allegations.
A second motion for summary judgment was granted based on the amended complaint on September 16, 2011, which Paluch challenged by a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law; the court denied this later motion on October 26, 2011.
Paluch filed a notice of appeal on November 22, 2011 seeking review of the September 16, 2011 entry and the October 26, 2011 denial.
The appellate court determined several September 2011 and October 2011 entries were void or not properly before the court, vacated the void portions, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the September 16, 2011 entry of summary judgment was properly appealable	Paluch contends timing tolling issues apply under Civ.R.58(B) and App.R.4(A).	The hospital argues the entry is void or voidable and not merits-reviewable due to amended pleadings and post-judgment actions.	The appeal from the September 16, 2011 entry is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to void/unauthorized basis affecting review.
Whether the October 26, 2011 denial of findings of fact and conclusions of law was appealable	Paluch sought review of the denial as a post-judgment order delaying final resolution.	The denial did not affect a substantial right and is not a final appealable order.	Dismissal of appeal as to the October 26, 2011 denial for lack of appealability.
Whether the trial court lacked authority to entertain amendments and second motions after a final judgment	The hospital improperly sought to amend after final judgment, creating void subsequent entries.	The court acted within Civ.R.60(B) or as permitted post-judgment relief; amended pleadings were properly before the court.	Second summary judgment and related entries were void; appellate review constrained by void orders.

In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 (2001) ( Civ.R. 58(B) notice timing; tolling rules)
State ex rel. Hughes v. Celeste, 67 Ohio St.3d 429 (1993) (App.R. 4(A) tolling when notice served timely)
Pitts v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (motions for reconsideration null after final judgment)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Witta, 2011-Ohio-6068 (2011) (post-judgment relief; void vs voidable orders)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (jurisdictional analysis; void vs voidable judgments)
Civ.R. 58(B) and App.R. 4(A) guidance, N/A ( — ) (rules governing service of notice and tolling of appeal time)