2021 Ohio 107
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Jennifer DeGrant appealed a September 4, 2020 trial-court entry that denied her Civ.R. 11 motion for sanctions based on alleged misrepresentations in Mark DeGrant’s July 21, 2020 Submission of Changes to the shared-parenting plan.
- The July 21 Submission had been adopted by the trial court on July 27, 2020; an earlier appeal of that adoption was dismissed for lack of a final order because custody and support issues remained pending.
- Mark moved to dismiss the present appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the September 4 entry is not a final, appealable order and it lacks Civ.R. 54(B) “no just reason for delay” language.
- Jennifer argued the denial of sanctions prejudicially affected her substantial right to parent and deprived her of due process by adopting opposing counsel’s alleged misrepresentations without a hearing.
- The court concluded the Sept. 4 entry is not a final order: it concerns only a sanctions claim (attorney fees/expenses), does not affect the substantial right to parent, and can be reviewed after final judgment on remaining custody and related issues.
- The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 4, 2020 order denying Civ.R. 11 sanctions is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (special proceeding). | DeGrant: order affects her substantial right to parent and denies due process by accepting misrepresentations without a hearing. | DeGrant: (defendant) argues order is not final because custody/support and other matters remain pending; sanctions can be appealed after final judgment. | Court: Not final; it affects only fees/expenses, not the substantial right to parent; immediate appeal not necessary. |
| Whether the order is appealable without Civ.R. 54(B) "no just reason for delay" language when multiple claims/parties remain. | DeGrant: (implicit) special-proceeding status makes it appealable. | DeGrant: (defendant) argues Civ.R. 54(B) language is required for interlocutory orders affecting substantial rights in multi-claim/party cases. | Court: Civ.R. 54(B) language is required here; absence of that language means the order is not appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craig, 159 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2020) (explaining R.C. 2505.02 defines final order for appellate jurisdiction)
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2013) (appellate courts may review only final orders)
- Wilhelm-Kissinger v. Kissinger, 129 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 2011) (divorce is a special proceeding under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2))