Kellie Auto Sales, Inc. v. Hernandez, 2020 Ohio 1516

Kellie Auto Sales sued Clisanta M. Hernandez alleging she drove her vehicle into multiple parked cars on the dealership lot on December 17, 2016; Hernandez denied the allegations.
On November 15, 2018, at the scheduled trial, plaintiff's counsel told the court the case had been settled based on a phone call with Hernandez's former counsel; new counsel for Hernandez entered appearance that day.
Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the oral settlement on December 3, 2018; new defense counsel did not respond to that motion and later asserted the vehicle had been stolen and Hernandez was not liable.
Hernandez moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C) (arguing stolen-vehicle defense, failure to join an indispensable party, and laches); a trial was held June 20, 2019 (Hernandez did not attend).
The trial court issued a June 24, 2019 entry denying the 12(C) motion but stating it was not a final appealable order; Hernandez appealed that entry.
After the appeal was filed the trial court issued August entries finding liability and awarding $9,552.95; the Court of Appeals held the June 24 order was not final, dismissed the appeal, and ruled the trial court lost jurisdiction after the notice of appeal so those later entries were void; the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Hernandez's Civ.R. 12(C) motion (dismissal/judgment on the pleadings)	Kellie argued the motion was properly denied and the matter could proceed to determine liability and damages	Hernandez argued she was not liable because the car was stolen, an indispensable party (thief) was not joined, and the suit was barred by laches	Court found the June 24, 2019 denial was not a final appealable order and therefore the appeal must be dismissed (substantive merits not resolved on appeal)
Whether the court properly enforced an oral settlement agreement announced at trial call	Kellie asserted a settlement was reached Nov 14–15, 2018 and sought enforcement	Hernandez disputed enforcement through new counsel and later raised defenses to liability	Court did not substantively decide enforcement on appeal; appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of final order and held that once appellants filed a notice of appeal the trial court lost jurisdiction and subsequent August entries were void; remanded for further proceedings

Riverside v. State, 190 Ohio App.3d 765 (10th Dist. 2010) (appellate court may raise sua sponte whether an order is final and appealable)
Lanstberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 303 (1971) (definition of a final order: disposes of the whole case or a separate, distinct branch)
State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30 (2011) (filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with the appeal)
State ex rel. Rock v. School Emps. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206 (2002) (a perfected appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction)
Lonigro v. Lonigro, 55 Ohio App.3d 30 (2d Dist. 1989) (denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is generally not a final, appealable order)
Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014) (a void judgment is a nullity)