2018 Ohio 3029
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellees (multiple Hoffmans and Pitcher) filed two lawsuits (201700205 contesting a will; 201700206 for declaratory judgment) against Appellants (Wayne Hoffman, Pamela Hoffman, Gerald Braunstein) on Jan 17, 2017.
- On Feb 20, 2017 Wayne Hoffman phoned plaintiffs’ counsel and requested a 30‑day extension (disputed whether for an answer or for discovery).
- On Feb 23, 2017 Appellees filed motions for default judgment in both cases but did not serve those motions or give Appellants notice of the hearing; a magistrate held a hearing on Mar 13, 2017 without Appellants and entered defaults Mar 14, 2017.
- Appellants moved to vacate and for leave to file late answers; the magistrate denied relief in 201700206 (no magistrate decision was ever journalized in 201700205); the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and denied relief in both cases.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) Appellants had “appeared” for Civ.R. 55(A) notice purposes by contacting counsel, and (2) the motions for default were never served as required by Civ.R. 5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had "appeared" such that Civ.R. 55(A) required 7‑day notice before a default hearing | Appellees argued defendants had not manifested a clear intent to defend and thus no 7‑day notice was required | Appellants argued Wayne Hoffman’s phone call requesting an extension manifested a clear intent to defend, triggering Civ.R. 55(A) protection | Court held the phone call constituted an appearance; Civ.R. 55(A) notice was required and defaults entered without it were invalid |
| Whether service of the motions for default was required under Civ.R. 5 before the court could consider them | Appellees implicitly argued service/notice was unnecessary or complied with | Appellants noted no certificate of service was filed and the motions were not served | Court held Civ.R. 5 required service of the motions and proof of service; absence of service independently required reversal |
| Whether the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision in both cases was procedurally defective given no magistrate decision in one case | Appellees treated the magistrate decision as applicable to both cases | Appellants contended lack of a magistrate decision in 201700205 violated Civ.R. 53 procedures | Court found the trial court could rule in the first instance where no magistrate decision existed and that no prejudice flowed from treating the rulings together |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief should have been liberally applied to vacate defaults | Appellees opposed vacatur | Appellants sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) and equitable principles | Court reversed defaults on procedural grounds (Civ.R. 55 and Civ.R. 5) and remanded to vacate defaults—did not rest primary decision on Civ.R. 60(B) analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerson v. Pinkerson, 7 Ohio App.3d 319 (1st Dist. 1982) (purpose of Civ.R. 53 procedures is to afford meaningful opportunity to file objections)
- In re Estate of Hughes, 94 Ohio App.3d 551 (9th Dist. 1994) (trial‑court failure to comply with Civ.R. 53 requires prejudice to warrant reversal)
- Hansen v. Hansen, 132 Ohio App.3d 795 (1st Dist. 1999) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) motions is abuse of discretion)
- AMCA Internatl. Corp. v. Carlton, 10 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1984) (default judgments entered without required notice to an appearing defendant must be reversed)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (same rule protecting appearing defendants from surprise defaults)
- Baines v. Harwood, 87 Ohio App.3d 345 (12th Dist. 1993) (telephone contact with plaintiff’s counsel can constitute an appearance)
- Suki v. Blume, 9 Ohio App.3d 289 (8th Dist. 1983) (disfavoring secret filings and default judgments)