2018 Ohio 1235
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Harriet Hardy rented apartment 2B at 1647 S. Cove St.; Maveric Properties owned units 2B and 2C. Maveric gave notice to vacate by Aug. 1, 2016; Hardy left 2B Sept. 8, 2016; security deposits were not returned.
- Hardy filed a pro se small-claims complaint (Oct. 2016) seeking $1,395; initial dismissal for failure to appear was vacated and the case was set for hearing after mediation failed.
- Maveric answered and counterclaimed (Mar. 2017) for $1,559 in rent arrears, cleaning, and carpet replacement. Trial was set for May 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
- Hardy failed to appear at 9:00 a.m. but arrived at 1:00 p.m.; the court dismissed her complaint and entered judgment for Maveric on the counterclaim after taking defendant’s evidence.
- Hardy immediately filed a pro se motion to be reheard and, with counsel, a Civ.R. 60(B) motion alleging excusable neglect (mistaking trial time) and attaching an affidavit and LMHA correspondence; the trial court denied relief (June 14, 2017).
- On appeal, the Sixth District reviewed denial of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, concluded Hardy met the GTE factors (meritorious defense, excusable neglect, reasonable timing), reversed, vacated the judgment, and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief for failure to appear was an abuse of discretion | Hardy: she mistakenly thought trial was at 1:00 p.m., appeared at that time, immediately moved to be reheard, and has operative facts (LMHA correspondence, photos) supporting defenses | Maveric: Hardy had notice of the correct trial time and calendar errors do not constitute excusable neglect; dismissal was proper | Court: Abuse of discretion. Hardy showed meritorious defense, excusable neglect (not complete disregard for the judicial system), and timely motion; relief warranted |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice and entry of judgment on counterclaim without plaintiff present denied due process | Hardy: dismissal and adverse judgment without notice/opportunity to be heard and without ability to cross-examine violated rights | Maveric: proceeded properly after plaintiff’s nonappearance; trial evidence supported counterclaim judgment | Court: Because Civ.R. 60(B) relief should be granted, the dismissal and judgment are vacated and a new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Arc Industries, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, grounds under rule, reasonable time)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (Civ.R. 60(B) remedial rule to be liberally construed)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 14 N.E.3d 1003 (Ohio 2014) (excusable neglect defined negatively; not present when action shows complete disregard for judicial system)