In re Dissolution of Marriage of Smith
2017 Ohio 433
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nathan M. Smith appealed the trial court’s April 11, 2016 entry that dismissed all motions he had filed (including motions to vacate the 2008 dissolution decree).
- The April 11 entry expressly left several of Kelly M. Smith’s post-decree motions pending (ex parte temporary custody, show cause, enforce, reallocation of parental rights).
- The trial court did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language ("no just reason for delay") in the April 11 judgment.
- Nathan argued the order denying (or disposing of) his Civ.R. 60(B) relief is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.
- The majority held the appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final appealable order because multiple claims/motions remain pending and Civ.R. 54(B) language was not used; one judge dissented arguing the Civ.R. 60(B) ruling is independently appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 11, 2016 entry is a final, appealable order | Smith (Nathan) argued the denial/disposition of his Civ.R. 60(B) motions is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 | Smith (Kelly) argued the entry is not final because her multiple post-decree motions remain pending and the entry lacks Civ.R. 54(B) language | Court: Not final/appealable — dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Civ.R. 54(B) language absent and other claims remain pending |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (orders under Civ.R. 60(B) fall within R.C. 2505.02’s scope for final orders)
- Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (1980) (a denial of relief under Civ.R. 60(B) is a final, appealable order)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (finality for appellate jurisdiction requires satisfaction of R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B), if applicable)