2012 Ohio 4286
Ohio Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Dickerson sued CMHA in Sept. 2009 for neglectful maintenance and failure to warn about dangers after a laundry pole fell injuring a minor; parents claim loss of consortium and financial damages.
  • CMHA moved for leave to file an instanter summary-judgment motion; leave granted and summary judgment filed Mar. 7, 2011.
  • Dickerson failed to timely respond to the motion; the court denied her Civ.R. 56(F) request and then sua sponte vacated the judgment on Apr. 21, 2011.
  • Dickerson I (8th Dist. No. 96726, 2011-Ohio-6437) held the trial court lacked authority to sua sponte reverse a final judgment and reinstated the CMHA summary judgment; it indicated Civ.R. 60(B) could be used to address a substantive error if properly pleaded.
  • Cancer as of December 2011, appellees moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B); CMHA opposed, arguing improper use of 60(B) and lack of excusable neglect.
  • Feb. 10, 2012, the trial court granted Civ.R. 60(B) relief, finding excusable neglect and a meritorious defense; CMHA appeals.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was proper to undo an April 19, 2011 judgment. Dickerson argues 60(B)(1) relief justified by excusable neglect and meritorious defense. CMHA contends 60(B) cannot substitute for a direct appeal and merit fails. Relief granted; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Whether appellees’ Civ.R. 60(B) motion was improper as a substitute for appeal from Dickerson I. Dickerson contends 60(B) proper to address substantive error after Dickerson I. CMHA argues 60(B) not a vehicle for textual federal legal errors. Not improper under Dickerson I; 60(B) justified.
Whether the law of the case precluded reconsideration of the April 19, 2011 order. Dickerson argues law of the case applies to preclude relief. CMHA asserts law of the case prevents reconsideration. Law of the case not controlling; 60(B) review permitted.

Key Cases Cited

  • GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (sets forth Civ.R. 60(B) standards and conjunctive requirements)
  • Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B))
  • Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (1980) (Civ.R. 60(B) remedial and liberal construction principles)
Read the full case