2018 Ohio 3286
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Deutsche Bank (DB) filed a foreclosure complaint against Marlaine Jones; Jones answered pro se and later obtained counsel.
- DB moved for summary judgment; the trial court set a deadline for oppositions and granted Jones a 30‑day extension. Jones later sought a second extension to await production of the original promissory note.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and entered a Foreclosure Decree before addressing Jones’s second extension request or the scheduled status conference.
- Jones appealed the Foreclosure Decree. DB then moved in the appellate court for remand so the trial court could vacate the decree; DB also filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in the trial court after requesting remand.
- This court remanded; the trial court vacated the Foreclosure Decree under Civ.R. 60(B) based on DB’s claim it had located the original promissory note and that its earlier failure to produce it was inadvertent.
- Jones appealed the trial court’s grant of relief from judgment; the appellate court affirmed, rejecting Jones’s jurisdictional and merits challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide Civ.R. 60(B) motion while appeal pending | DB: Requested remand from appellate court so trial court could consider motion; remand cured jurisdiction concern | Jones: Trial court had no jurisdiction while prior appeal was pending; motion was void | Court: Remand granted before trial court ruled; trial court had jurisdiction to decide motion after remand |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) was being used as a substitute for appeal | DB: Not substituting for appeal—DB sought remand and moved to vacate because it newly found the original note | Jones: Relief under Civ.R. 60(B) improperly used to evade appellate review | Court: DB did not seek to substitute for appeal; Civ.R. 60(B) appropriate here |
| Whether DB satisfied the GTE requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) (meritorious defense/ground/timeliness) | DB: Located original promissory note; failure to produce was inadvertence/mistake—grounds under Civ.R. 60(B) | Jones: DB failed to show mistake, meritorious defense, or excusable neglect | Court: Jones offered no evidence to rebut DB’s showing; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting relief |
| Whether vacating decree was an improper correction of a final order under appellate exclusivity | DB: Remand and motion addressed procedural discovery error, not an end-run around appellate jurisdiction | Jones: Trial court’s correction intruded on appellate authority over final orders | Court: After remand, trial court properly exercised jurisdiction; vacatur appropriate under Civ.R. 60(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Majnaric v. Majnaric, 46 Ohio App.2d 157 (9th Dist.) (procedure for seeking trial‑court consideration of a motion while appeal pending)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (motion for relief from judgment requirements: meritorious defense, proper ground, timeliness)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (all GTE requirements must be met; denial if any unmet)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 124 Ohio St.3d 63 (Civ.R. 60(B) relief is not generally a substitute for timely appeal)