Howard v. Hawkins
2017 Ohio 1473
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Tammy Howard sued Daniel and Joan Hawkins in Lucas C.P. for breach of contract, attaching a written "Purchase Agreement" transferring a backhoe and a 1982 dump truck for $27,000.
- Complaint served on Joan (Mar. 10, 2014) and Daniel (Apr. 3, 2014); defendants failed to answer in 28 days.
- Howard moved for default judgments (May 1–2, 2014). The Hawkinses sought two extensions; the court granted them and the Hawkinses filed a verified answer on June 9, 2014.
- Defendants pleaded fraud/forgery as an affirmative defense, claiming Daniel never signed the written contract; both Hawkinses testified the signature was not Daniel’s.
- After a bench trial the trial court found neither party met its burden; it concluded the written contract was invalid and entered judgment for defendants. Howard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court abuse discretion by allowing an out-of-time answer without showing excusable neglect? | Howard: Court erred; Civ.R. 12(A) requires leave and excusable neglect for late answers. | Hawkins: They sought extensions in good faith and case should be decided on merits. | Reversed in part: Granting extensions without inquiry into excusable neglect was error; remand for the court to consider a motion for leave showing excusable neglect. |
| 2. Should default judgment have been entered when defendants missed the initial deadline? | Howard: Default judgment was warranted. | Hawkins: No prejudice; merits should control. | Premature: Decision deferred to remand — if no excusable neglect shown, strike answer and enter default; if shown, proceedings proceed on merits. |
| 3. Was there a valid written contract? | Howard: The written purchase agreement is binding. | Hawkins: Signature was forged / fraud in execution; no valid written contract. | Affirmed: Trial court reasonably found evidence of forgery/fraud; written contract invalid. |
| 4. Are the trial court’s factual findings against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Howard: Findings are against the manifest weight. | Hawkins: Credible evidence supports the judgment. | Affirmed: Appellate court found competent, credible evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. M. O'Neil & Co., 78 Ohio St. 200 (fraud in execution voids instrument)
- Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St.2d 209 (allowing late answer without excusable neglect is abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Immediate Med. Servs., Inc., 80 Ohio St.3d 10 (same principle re: Civ.R. 6(B))
- Jenkins v. Clark, 7 Ohio App.3d 93 (default judgment practice when late answer not permitted)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard discussion)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (civil manifest-weight standard)