Karnofel v. Nye
2017 Ohio 7027
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ann Karnofel sued contractor Dan Nye in Girard Municipal Court claiming improperly installed drainpipe/French drain caused yard/backflow and basement damage; Nye counterclaimed for fees.
- October 27, 2015 bench hearing: Karnofel and her daughter testified pipes were installed incorrectly and showed photos; Nye testified he complied with the contract and pooling resulted from natural grade and neighbor’s slope.
- Magistrate found Karnofel failed to prove damages and ruled for Nye on her claim; trial court adopted the decision; this court affirmed on direct appeal (2016-Ohio-3406).
- On October 28, 2016 Karnofel filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion attaching two photographs she labeled as newly discovered evidence (one pre-work, one showing conditions two seasons later) and alleged mistake and fraud.
- Trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion; Karnofel appealed from that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief is warranted based on newly discovered evidence, mistake, or fraud | Photos are newly discovered and prove improper installation; trial court erred in interpreting evidence | (Not briefed) Trial court reasonably found photos were not newly discoverable or admissible to reopen judgment; prior findings resolved credibility | Denied: photos were not "newly discovered" under Civ.R.60(B)(2); one could have been produced earlier and the other post-dates the trial; no fraud shown; motion fails all Rose/GTE requirements |
| Whether Karnofel was denied due process by judicial bias against a pro se elderly female litigant | Court favored defendant due to gender/other bias, denying due process | (Not briefed) No evidence of bias; rulings were based on credibility and record | Denied: appellant offered no evidence of bias; prior appellate decision already rejected similar claim; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (sets three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (establishes requirements for relief from judgment)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (Civ.R. 60(B) review is committed to trial court’s sound discretion)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (Civ.R. 60(B) requirements are conjunctive)
- Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684 (Ohio 1982) (Civ.R. 60(B) is not a substitute for an appeal)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2002) (judicial bias can implicate due process)