2018 Ohio 712
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Colfor Manufacturing, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s prior judgment affirming the Carroll County Common Pleas Court.
- The underlying appellate judgment was filed December 28, 2017; Colfor did not file its motion for reconsideration until January 16, 2018.
- App.R. 26(A)(1) requires a motion for reconsideration be filed within ten days of the judgment.
- The clerk served the judgment by mail on January 3, 2018 (Civ.R. 58(B) and Civ.R. 5(B)); mailing completed service rules control the start of the filing period.
- Computation of time excluded weekends and the New Year’s Day holiday, making Colfor’s reconsideration due January 8, 2018; its January 16 filing was untimely.
- The court also noted Colfor’s arguments had been previously considered on direct appeal, so they could not form a basis for reconsideration even if timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Colfor’s motion for reconsideration timely under App.R. 26? | Judgment not mailed until Jan 3, 2018, so ten-day clock should start then. | Clerk timely served by mail Jan 3; mailing rules start the clock earlier. | Motion was untimely (filed Jan 16); required by Jan 8. |
| May the court excuse untimeliness based on Colfor’s mailing claim? | Service not complete until Jan 3; equitable consideration warranted. | Civ.R. 58(B)/Civ.R.5(B) and computation rules control; deadlines applied. | Court applied Civil and Appellate Rules and rejected Colfor’s contention. |
| Can reconsideration be granted for issues already considered on direct appeal? | Seeks re-review of arguments raised previously. | App.R. 26 disallows re-litigating issues already considered; only obvious errors or unconsidered issues allowed. | Court held previously considered arguments cannot support reconsideration. |
| Should the court reconsider on the merits despite procedural defects? | Requested substantive review. | Procedural timeliness and prior consideration preclude relief. | Motion denied; costs taxed to petitioner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist. 1981) (motion for reconsideration proper when it points out an obvious error or raises an issue not considered)
- State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334 (11th Dist. 1996) (reconsideration is not for relitigation of disagreements with the appellate court’s reasoning)