2012 Ohio 1201
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2000, Lewis delivered his 1968 Chrysler 300 to Classic Auto Body for restoration, paying a $500 non-refundable deposit.
- Classic provided a written estimate on January 11, 2000 estimating a restoration cost of about $5,055.75.
- Lewis paid an additional $482 toward the balance on February 18, 2000 for recommended mechanical repairs.
- Starting in 2004, Classic advised that paying $2,000 would move the project forward; Lewis paid $2,000 on April 7, 2004.
- By June 2006 Classic had not begun the restoration; Lewis paid the remaining balance in full on June 1, 2006.
- By 2008 the project remained incomplete; Classic repeatedly guaranteed completion by June 10, 2008 and then by July 14, 2008, but did not finalize the restoration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was warranted for newly discovered damages | Lewis contends additional vehicle damages constitute newly discovered evidence. | Classic argues no new evidence; due diligence shown. | No relief; 60(B)(2) denied |
| Whether a hearing was required on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Lewis seeks a hearing to present the new damages evidence. | No hearing required where no due diligence shown and no entitlement to relief. | No error; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-part test compatibility for 60(B))
- State v. Barnes, 8th Dist. No. 95557, 2011-Ohio-2917 (8th Dist. 2011) (newly discovered evidence requires due diligence)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (definition of newly discovered evidence)