GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Falah, 2025 Ohio 755

GEICO pursued a subrogation claim against Falah, alleging Falah negligently caused a motor vehicle accident and owed $39,287.19 in damages.
Falah did not respond to GEICO's initial complaint, resulting in a default judgment in GEICO's favor.
Nine months later, Falah moved to vacate the default judgment under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B), claiming he believed the lawsuit was a scam as he was not involved in the accident and his vehicle was inoperable at the relevant time.
Falah supported his motion with an affidavit detailing his belief that the claim was fraudulent, prior inoperability of his vehicle, and unsuccessful attempts by his daughter to contact GEICO’s counsel.
The trial court granted Falah’s motion to vacate the default judgment, which GEICO appealed, contesting whether the trial court properly found excusable neglect and applied the Civ.R. 60(B) standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lack of evidentiary support for 60(B)	No evidence supported relief; affidavit alone insufficient	Affidavit provided sufficient operative facts to merit relief	Affidavit sufficed as evidence; court did not abuse discretion
Court failed to make GTE findings	Must make explicit findings under GTE test	No mandate for explicit findings absent Civ.R. 52 request	No requirement unless requested under Civ.R. 52
Excusable neglect	Receipt of service but no response is not excusable neglect	Belief in scam, daughter’s contact, and confusion justified neglect	Court acted within its discretion; neglect was excusable on facts

GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (sets forth the three-prong test governing Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (describes when trial courts must hold a hearing on Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 1990) (discusses the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review)