Dublin v. Beatley
2016 Ohio 5606
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- City of Dublin filed an appropriation complaint against Jack Beatley on Sept. 9, 2015, alleging intent to take part of his property and alleging statutory pre-suit notice had been provided or attempted.
- Beatley moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) on Oct. 21, 2015, arguing Dublin failed to comply with the notice requirements of R.C. 163.04 and 163.041 (personal or certified-mail delivery).
- Dublin opposed the motion on Nov. 4, 2015, but due to an electronic-filing problem certain affidavits (Dublin police attempts at service) were omitted from the filed memorandum.
- On Dec. 21, 2015 the trial court granted Beatley’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding Dublin failed to establish the required notice.
- Dublin moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B) (Jan. 8, 2016), asserting mistake/excusable neglect from the missing exhibits; the trial court granted relief on Apr. 19, 2016, found constructive service sufficient, denied the dismissal, and allowed Dublin to amend its complaint.
- Beatley appealed; the appellate court reviewed the Civ.R. 60(B) ruling and whether constructive service can substitute for the statutory notice required in appropriation proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief after 12(B)(1) dismissal | Dublin: omitted exhibits were clerical/e-filing mistake and constitute excusable neglect warranting relief so merits can be heard | Beatley: Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to avoid jurisdictional defects and reargue decided issues | Court: Partially agreed — trial court did not abuse discretion in granting 60(B) for clerical mistake, but ultimate jurisdictional error remained; reinstated dismissal |
| Whether constructive service can substitute for R.C. 163.04(A) personal/certified-mail notice in appropriation actions | Dublin: Beatley evaded service; constructive service or Civ.R. 4.1 methods are proper when owner intentionally avoids service | Beatley: statutory notice is mandatory and jurisdictional; constructive service cannot replace statutory method | Court: Rejected Dublin’s position; strict statutory notice required in appropriation proceedings; constructive service cannot supplant R.C. 163.04(A) |
| Whether 60(B) was improperly used to reargue previously decided issues or to resolve ultimate jurisdictional question | Dublin: 60(B) addressed a true clerical error that prevented submission of evidence on service | Beatley: 60(B) was used as a vehicle to relitigate and decide the jurisdictional notice issue without proper basis/hearing | Court: Found 60(B) relief warranted for the filing mistake but held the trial court erred in treating constructive service as meeting statutory notice; dismissal reinstated |
| Whether trial court needed a hearing before granting 60(B) relief and whether granting leave to amend was proper absent jurisdiction | Dublin: relief was appropriate based on manifest clerical error; amendment would cure pleading | Beatley: Hearing required; court lacked jurisdiction so leave to amend was improper | Court: Declared assignments relating to hearing and leave to amend moot after reversal; reinstated original dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard that Civ.R. 60(B) lies in court's sound discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate review of abuse-of-discretion requires a finding decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, entitled to relief under rule grounds, and timeliness)
- John Roberts Mgmt. Co. v. Obetz, 188 Ohio App.3d 362 (10th Dist. 2010) (jurisdictional issues reviewed de novo)