DJL, Inc. v. Massingille
2011 Ohio 6281
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Country Lakes filed a small-claims breach-of-contract suit for $1,676 over a wedding reception.
- Defendants failed to appear; a default judgment was entered against them after the August 10, 2010 hearing.
- Defendants answered and counterclaimed on August 6, 2010 seeking transfer to regular docket due to a >$3,000 claim.
- The court did not rule on the transfer before trial; judgment was entered against defendants.
- Defendants later sought relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B); the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not allowing an answer/counterclaim to trigger transfer. | Country Lakes contends no transfer was warranted. | Massingilles argue the counterclaim >$3,000 and transfer should have occurred. | No reversible error; transfer denial affirmed. |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was properly denied. | Country Lakes seeks relief from judgment based on procedural issues. | Massingilles claim excusable neglect as pro se defendants. | Judgment on Civ.R. 60(B) relief affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; meritorious defense and timely motion)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (discretionary standard for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B))
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2003) (pro se status not controlling for procedural rules)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Serv., 145 Ohio App.3d 651 (Ohio App. 2001) (pro se and procedural rule considerations)
- Dayton Power & Light v. Holdren, 2008-Ohio-5121 (Ohio App. 2008) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief standards apply to final judgments)