Glass v. Vinicky
2014 Ohio 702
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Glass and Basista owned real property in University Heights; Vinicky signed an installment land contract to pay $170,000 with $3,000 earnest money and 360 payments of $797.28.
- Plaintiffs filed a July 10, 2012 complaint in Shaker Heights Municipal Court alleging rent nonpayment from Aug 2010 to May 2011 and unpaid real estate taxes, seeking damages, cancellation, restitution, and forfeiture.
- Defendant failed to respond to discovery; plaintiffs moved to deem admissions admitted (Sept. 26, 2012) and moved for summary judgment (Oct. 5, 2012).
- Trial court granted summary judgment on December 19, 2012, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that admissions were deemed admitted.
- On March 28, 2013, Vinicky moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), asserting excusable neglect and a void contract due to Glass’s lack of authority.
- The trial court denied relief; appellate court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion and that Glass acted as Basista’s guardian with authority to sign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was properly denied | Glass argues Vinicky failed to show excusable neglect and meritorious defense | Vinicky contends sudden death of her father and related issues constitute excusable neglect | No abuse of discretion; excusable neglect not shown |
| Whether Vinicky has a meritorious defense to void the contract | Glass shows contract valid; guardian authority established | Vinicky contends Glass had no authority to sign for Basista and contract void | Meritorious defense not shown; contract upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) ( Civ.R. 60(B) standards for relief from judgment)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)