GEICO Indemn. Ins. Co. v. August
2021 Ohio 2118
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellants GEICO and Tenisha Ballard Rubbins sued Daniel August for $14,419.70 arising from a July 28, 2014 automobile accident; summons initially returned unclaimed and reissued by regular mail.
- No answer was filed; trial court entered default judgment for appellants on May 31, 2016.
- On February 19, 2020 (almost four years later), August filed a letter/motion to vacate the default judgment and submitted an affidavit from Keith Clardy stating Clardy, not August, was the driver and that Clardy gave August’s name to the police. August did not file his own sworn affidavit.
- The municipal court initially declined to consider the motion for lack of a certificate of service but later considered it; appellants filed a memorandum in opposition.
- On March 24, 2020, without a hearing, the court set aside the May 31, 2016 default judgment; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rubbins/GEICO) | Defendant's Argument (August) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted Civ.R. 60(B) relief based on the materials submitted | The motion relied on unsworn allegations and lacked August’s affidavit; supporting materials were insufficient to meet GTE's operative-facts requirement | The Clardy affidavit (and claimed mistake/new evidence) showed a meritorious defense and justified vacatur | Reversed—unsworn allegations/absence of movant’s affidavit made the motion unsupported; trial court abused its discretion |
| Whether the Civ.R. 60(B) motion was timely under GTE (one-year rule for subsections (1)–(3)) | The motion was filed nearly four years after the default judgment and thus untimely if premised on mistake/newly discovered evidence/fraud | August relied on mistake/new evidence theories (Civ.R. 60(B)(1)–(3)) to justify relief | Reversed—because the motion rested on theories covered by Civ.R. 60(B)(1)–(3), it was untimely as filed almost four years later |
| Whether the trial court was required to make and state GTE findings before granting relief | Trial court made no GTE findings and provided no analysis applying the three-prong test | August implicitly argued relief was warranted on the submitted record | Reversed—the entry lacked required findings under GTE, which was error |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before granting relief | Appellants argued lack of a hearing prevented cross-examination and testing of assertions | August argued the submitted affidavit sufficed and a hearing was not required | Moot as to merits—the appellate court reversed on other grounds; noted as a general rule hearings are not automatically required under Kay |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (establishes three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, applicable ground, and timeliness)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (no automatic right to an evidentiary hearing on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion)
- E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker, 59 Ohio App.2d 216 (8th Dist. 1978) (unsworn allegations are insufficient evidence to grant Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Wilmington Steel Prod., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1991) (appellate review focuses on whether trial court abused discretion in Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)