Kassoudji v. Stamps
2016 Ohio 7693
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In July 2014 Kossoudji sued Rick and Irma Stamps on a land-installment contract, alleging default, unpaid taxes, and destructive alterations; trial was set for Feb. 25, 2015.
- The Stamps were represented by counsel; both counsel and the Stamps received electronic notices and a pretrial order warning nonappearance could lead to dismissal or proceeding without them.
- The Stamps and their attorneys did not appear at trial; Kossoudji presented uncontroverted evidence and was awarded $133,929.44 plus interest and ordered the Stamps to quit-claim the property; no objections or appeals were filed.
- Kossoudji sold the property three days after the court entered judgment; she had obtained a certificate of judgment and the sale proceeded post-judgment.
- The Stamps moved under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) (excusable neglect) and (4) (judgment satisfied/inequitable prospective application); the trial court denied relief. The court of appeals reversed in part, granting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) but affirming denial under Civ.R. 60(B)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ failure to appear at trial constituted excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) | Kossoudji: attorneys had notice and nonappearance was not excusable; neglect of counsel imputes to client | Stamps: they had meritorious defenses, believed counsel would attend, were not told counsel would not appear | Denied: counsel neglect imputed to clients; no excusable neglect shown; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether relief was warranted under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) because the judgment was satisfied or it is inequitable to apply it prospectively after post-judgment sale | Kossoudji: judgment awarded money for contract breaches; sale does not satisfy those damages and remedies under R.C. chapter 5313 may not apply | Stamps: property was reconveyed and sold post-judgment; allowing money judgment plus vendor reclaiming and selling property gives double recovery and is inequitable | Granted: appellate court held post-judgment sale and failure to credit sale proceeds made prospective application inequitable; remanded to determine actual monetary loss crediting sale proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (establishes three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test and that an attorney's neglect is generally imputed to the client)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (explains parties are bound by acts or omissions of chosen counsel)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (standard of appellate review for Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (defines "abuse of discretion" as decisions without a sound reasoning process)