Johnson v. Geico Homesite, Inc.
2017 Ohio 7273
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gregory D. Johnson (pro se) sued Homesite Insurance after Homesite denied a renter’s insurance theft claim, asserting Homesite relied on prior claims for the same property.
- Trial court granted Homesite’s motion for summary judgment and denied Johnson’s cross-motion on December 20, 2016.
- Johnson filed a January 4, 2017 post-judgment filing titled "motion for reconsideration under Ohio Civil Rule 60-B [sic] or as court deems appropriate, relief from judgment of Rule 56."
- The trial court construed the filing as both a motion for reconsideration and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and summarily denied it on January 17, 2017.
- The appellate court had previously struck Johnson’s attempt to appeal the December 20 summary-judgment order as untimely, leaving only the January 17 order before it.
- The Sixth District held Johnson’s post-judgment filing was a motion for reconsideration (a nullity), and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to Homesite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the January 4 filing sought Civ.R. 60(B) relief or only reconsideration | Johnson characterized the filing as Civ.R. 60(B) relief (and/or reconsideration) seeking reversal of the summary-judgment result | Homesite argued the filing was a motion for reconsideration (nullity) or, alternatively, that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion was properly denied | The court held the filing was a motion for reconsideration, not a proper Civ.R. 60(B) motion, and thus was a nullity |
| Whether an appellate court can review a denial of a reconsideration motion | Johnson appealed the trial court’s denial | Homesite argued motions for reconsideration of final judgments are nullities and not appealable | Court held appeals from orders denying reconsideration are not reviewable because the underlying motion is a legal nullity |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by summarily denying post-judgment relief | Johnson argued the court should have given reasons/opinion and compelled evidence | Homesite argued summary denial was proper and no detailed findings were required | Court held summary denial was permissible; trial court need not issue findings of fact/conclusions when denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief |
| Effect of pro se status on procedural strictness | Johnson implicitly sought leniency as a pro se litigant | Homesite argued pro se status does not confer special procedural privileges | Court held pro se litigant bound by same rules; filings must meet standards and mistakes have consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Long, 133 Ohio St. 41 (Ohio 1937) (substance of a motion controls over its form)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is a nullity)
- McCartney v. Oblates of St. Francis deSales, 80 Ohio App.3d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (an appellate court cannot consider an appeal from a nullity)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (standards for Cav.R. 60(B) relief; meritorious defense, ground, timeliness)
- Argo Plastic Prods. Co. v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio 1984) (failure to satisfy any GTE requirement warrants denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 168 Ohio App.3d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (orders on reconsideration are themselves nullities)