Landau v. Sposato, 2013 Ohio 4568

Landau filed a small claims suit seeking $2,915.40 plus costs; complaint served Oct 19, 2011 with default-judgment warning.
Counsel for Sposato appeared Nov 29, 2011; court granted two continuances: Jan 13, 2012 and Jan 27, 2012.
Sposato filed Jan 25, 2012 a continuance request and motion to transfer to regular docket; court transferred and continued the Jan 27 hearing.
On Jan 27, 2012 Landau appeared; Sposato and counsel did not; the court vacated its Jan 25 transfer/continuance order and granted default judgment against Sposato.
Sposato moved to vacate the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B); appeal followed; this court remanded for ruling on the motion to vacate, which was denied on Nov 30, 2012.
The question presented is whether Civ.R. 55(A) notice applies to small claims and whether the continuance was fundamentally unfair, affecting due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Civ.R. 55(A) notice applies to small claims?	Landau argues Civ.R. 55(A) governs defaults.	Sposato argues Civ.R. 55(A) applies and she had no notice of a default hearing.	Civ.R. 55(A) not applicable to small claims.
Was proceeding in Sposato's absence after a continuance fundamentally fair?	Landau relied on continuation; Landau appeared.	Sposato relied on continuance and did not attend; due process requires fairness.	Proceeding in absence was fundamentally unfair; due process violated.
Did vacating the continuance and proceeding defeat due process?	Landau sought outcome on merits after continuance.	Court improperly vacated continuance and proceeded.	Trial court abused discretion; judgment reversed and remanded.

Tomety v. Dynamic Auto Serv., 2010-Ohio-3699 (Ohio 2010) (Civ.R. 55(A) not applicable to small claims)
Miller v. McStay, 2007-Ohio-369 (Ohio 2007) (Civ.R. 55(A) not applicable to small claims)
Sheaff v. Conese, 2002-Ohio-5607 (Ohio 2002) (notice provisions not controlling where defendant appeared)