2016 Ohio 4583
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- CitiMortgage (successor to ABN AMRO) sued Greg Teofilo in 2012 to foreclose on real property in Erie County, Ohio.
- In 2014 the trial court granted summary judgment for CitiMortgage and denied Teofilo’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
- Teofilo filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the summary-judgment order and the next day filed an appeal; this court remanded for the trial court to rule on that first 60(B) motion.
- After the trial court denied the first 60(B) motion, the appeal continued and concluded in January 2016.
- While that appeal was pending, Teofilo filed a second Civ.R. 60(B) motion; the trial court ruled on (denied) that second motion on August 5, 2015, despite this court’s earlier denial of a second remand.
- The Sixth District concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the second 60(B) motion while an appeal was pending, found the ruling void, and dismissed Teofilo’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide a Civ.R. 60(B) motion while an appeal of the underlying judgment was pending | Teofilo: the trial court lacked jurisdiction and thus its ruling was improper | CitiMortgage: ruling on the 60(B) motion was harmless error | Court: An appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over 60(B) motions unless the appellate court remands; the trial court’s decision was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the 60(B) motion without a hearing | Teofilo: factual allegations warranted a hearing | CitiMortgage: (implicitly) no hearing required or error was harmless | Court did not reach merits because the denial was void for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court erred by not explaining its denial of the 60(B) motion | Teofilo: court failed to explain or consider the motion | CitiMortgage: (implicitly) procedural posture made this immaterial | Court did not decide the claim on the merits due to void judgment; explanation requirement irrelevant after voiding |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to consider Civ.R. 60(B) motions unless appellate court remands)
- In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11 (2005) (reiterating that appeals divest trial courts of jurisdiction over post-judgment motions)
- In re Kurtzhalz, 141 Ohio St. (1943) (same rule regarding loss of trial-court jurisdiction during appeal)
- State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246 (2006) (judgments entered without subject-matter jurisdiction are void ab initio)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (a void judgment must be treated as though it never existed)
- Horvath v. Packo, 985 N.E.2d 966 (6th Dist. 2013) (an appeal from a void judgment must be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order)