Equable Ascent Fin. v. Ybarra
2013 Ohio 4282
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Equable Ascent filed a complaint against Ybarra for $3,086.85 on a credit card account; Ybarra moved to dismiss arguing Equable Ascent, as a collection agency, lacked an Ohio business location per R.C. 1319.12(B).
- Equable Ascent did not respond to the motion to dismiss; Avon Lake Municipal Court dismissed the complaint on June 27, 2011.
- Equable Ascent filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on January 3, 2012, arguing it was not a collection agency and the motion was timely within seven months.
- The trial court granted the Civ.R. 60(B) motion the same day it was filed, without giving Ybarra an opportunity to respond.
- Ybarra appealed raising three assignments of error, with the third assignment addressing the lack of timely notice/opportunity to respond to the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court erred in granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief the same day without allowing response, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and procedure of Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Ybarra | Equable Ascent | Granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief without opportunity to respond was an abuse of discretion. |
| Raising Civ.R. 60(B) as substitute for appeal | Ybarra | Equable Ascent | Not ripe for review; ruling must await proper relief avenues. |
| Effect of Civ.R. 60(B) timing on due process | Ybarra | Equable Ascent | Due process requires notice and opportunity to respond prior to decision on Civ.R. 60(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard.)
- State v. Dalchuk, 2003-Ohio-4268 (Ohio 2003) (reasonable opportunity to respond before ruling on Civ.R. 60(B).)
- Haley v. Nomad Preservation, 2013-Ohio-159 (Ohio 2013) (due process; opportunity to respond required.)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (discretion in ruling on Civ.R. 60(B) matters.)
- State v. Ross, 2004-Ohio-856 (Ohio 2004) (notice and opportunity to respond in motions for judicial release.)