Hillman v. Edwards
2014 Ohio 5667
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Hillman sued his former attorney Edwards in two consolidated legal-malpractice actions; one complaint was not properly served, the other was and led to litigation.
- Edwards answered late; Hillman moved for default. The trial court accepted Edwards’ untimely answer and denied default, then granted Edwards summary judgment.
- This court in Hillman I found the trial court erred in accepting an untimely answer without a Civ.R. 6(B) motion and remanded for consideration of excusable neglect; the court instructed the trial court to reinstate summary judgment if leave to file was allowed.
- On remand the trial court granted Edwards leave to file, found excusable neglect, denied default, and reinstated summary judgment; this court affirmed in Hillman II and held res judicata barred relitigation of the merits.
- Hillman filed two Civ.R. 60(B) motions seeking relief from the November 2, 2009 judgment (and from the denial of his first 60(B) motion); the trial court denied both and Hillman appealed the second denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Hillman’s second Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Hillman reargued that the court erred in allowing Edwards’ untimely answer, denying default, and granting summary judgment; also claimed the court misapplied res judicata and denied a hearing | The issues were previously litigated/decided; the second 60(B) motion raises no new facts or grounds and is barred by res judicata | Denial affirmed: res judicata bars successive 60(B) motions recycling same issues; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Hillman was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his second 60(B) motion | Hillman contended the court should have held a hearing because operative facts and evidence supported relief | The motion contained only conclusory allegations and no new operative facts warranting relief; no automatic right to a hearing | Denial affirmed: no hearing required where motion and attachments lack operative facts warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (all Civ.R. 60(B) elements must be proven)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (Civ.R. 60(B) review is for abuse of discretion)
- CarusoCiresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a catch-all; not a substitute for other grounds)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 1996) (a hearing is required only if the motion alleges operative facts that, if true, would warrant relief)