Glessner v. Select Genetics L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 532
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff-appellee Glessner sued to confess judgment on a March 2012 promissory note for $252,500 against Select Genetics LLC and related individuals.
- Affidavit of Attorney Confessing Judgment and Answer by Warrant of Attorney were filed; judgment by confession entered May 4, 2015.
- Appellants moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), arguing res judicata and lack of original warrant of attorney under R.C. 2323.13(A).
- Appellee had previously obtained a cognovit judgment on the same note in Franklin County (April 2014) and a Wisconsin stay order questioned subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Circuit court denied relief; the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas judgment by confession was challenged on the basis of double cognovit judgments and lack of original warrant.
- Third District Court of Appeals reversed, holding res judicata barred a second cognovit in Ohio until Franklin County judgment vacated; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar a second cognovit on the same note? | Glessner argues Franklin County judgment voids, so res judicata cannot apply to a Mercer County cognovit. | Appellants contend the Mercer County judgment is valid and not barred by res judicata due to lack of vacatur. | Yes; res judicata bars a second cognovit until Franklin County judgment is vacated. |
| May the Mercer County court supersede a prior cognovit from Franklin County? | Glessner contends Mercer County can issue its own cognovit if jurisdiction exists. | Appellants argue Mercer County lacked authority to supersede Franklin County judgment. | No; Mercer County lacked authority to supersede the Franklin County judgment. |
| Is the original warrant of attorney required by R.C. 2323.13(A) necessary, or may a copy suffice? | Glessner asserts a copy of the warrant is permitted under statute. | Appellants argue the original warrant must be filed to confess judgment. | The original warrant was required; a copy was insufficient. |
| Did Wisconsin stay order affect the validity of the Franklin County judgment? | Glessner believes the Wisconsin decision does not void Franklin County judgment without proper vacatur. | Appellants rely on Wisconsin order to claim void status of Franklin County judgment. | Wisconsin order did not void Franklin County judgment; no vacatur occurred. |
| Did the court improperly rely on external decisions to determine voidness of the Franklin County judgment? | Glessner relies on Ohio law determining subject-matter jurisdiction and void judgments. | Appellants contend foreign decisions can void a judgment without Ohio default vacatur. | Court erred in relying on external decisions; voidness not established without proper vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (claim preclusion under res judicata)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (Civ.R. 60(B) standards and relief from judgment)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (elements of Civ.R. 60(B) relief are independent and conjunctive)
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St.299 (1943) (final judgment on merits; bar to subsequent action)
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014) (courts limited in vacating judgments of other courts)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (2007) (collateral attacks on judgments)