2011 Ohio 421
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff-appellee Deutsche Bank seeks reconsideration of a prior appellate decision reversing and remanding the trial court’s foreclosure judgment.
- The court addressed timeliness and discretionary considerations under App.R. 26 for reconsideration, including whether untimely motions can be entertained for sufficient importance.
- The court allowed supplementation of the appellate record with an omitted transcript portion per Reichert v. Ingersoll to resolve the merits.
- The supplemental transcript showed the trial court did continue the hearing, heard summary-judgment-related testimony, and was willing to reconsider its summary-judgment ruling.
- The court ultimately granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated the earlier judgment reversal, and affirmed the trial court’s decision; a dissent would deny reconsideration based on untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the reconsideration motion | Deutsche Bank argues timely consideration despite date | Knox contends untimely motion should be denied | Untimely but still considered due to importance |
| Appellate court authority to enlarge time under App.R. 14(B) | Court has jurisdiction to enlarge for extraordinary circumstances | No extraordinary circumstances shown | Court has jurisdiction to enlarge time under App.R. 14(B) |
| Effect of record supplementation on the merits | Supplemental transcript supports reconsideration | Record omission does not justify late filing | Record supplementation permitted; reconsideration granted based on merits |
| Impact of untimely reconsideration on finality and precedent | Reconsideration cures judicial error | Untimeliness undermines final judgments | Majority allows reconsideration; dissent would deny based on Martin/Boone |
Key Cases Cited
- Boone v. State, 114 Ohio App.3d 275 (1996) (untimely reconsideration may be entertained for sufficient importance)
- Martin v. Roeder, 75 Ohio St.3d 603 (1996) (appellate relief from judgment limits reconsideration timing)
- Chandler v. C&A Hickman and Sons, Inc., (July 18, 1996) (4th Dist.) (App.R. 14(B) enlargement jurisdiction)
- Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220 (1985) (omitted transcript portions may warrant reconsideration)
- State v. Hess, 2004-Ohio-1197 (7th Dist.) (untimely reconsideration considerations)
- Scott v. Falcon Transport Co., 2004-Ohio-389 (7th Dist.) (untimely reconsideration not allowed absent extraordinary circumstances)