LexisNexis v. Holmes
2017 Ohio 1388
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Holmes, an Ohio attorney, contracted with LexisNexis for online research; services were cancelled for nonpayment and LexisNexis sued in April 2016 seeking about $11,768 plus fees and interest.
- Holmes was served in early May; he called plaintiff’s counsel on May 23 and requested a three-week extension to answer (plaintiff’s counsel did not oppose), but no extension was filed with or approved by the court.
- The court issued a notice of default as to appearance and, after plaintiff applied, entered default judgment on June 17 for the claimed amount plus attorney fees; Holmes was served with that judgment on June 20.
- Holmes filed a motion to transfer venue to Cuyahoga County (treated as moot by the trial court because judgment had already been entered) and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (asserting mistake/excusable neglect and alleging meritorious defenses), which the trial court denied.
- On appeal, Holmes argued (1) the court failed to comply with Civ.R. 55(A) notice/hearing requirements, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief, and (3) the trial court should have granted the venue transfer; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court failed to comply with Civ.R. 55(A) notice/hearing before default judgment | Plaintiff: complied with rules and obtained default judgment after notice of default | Holmes: default entered without required Civ.R. 55(A) notice or hearing | Court: even if Civ.R. 55(A) notice/hearing issue exists, Holmes failed Civ.R. 60(B) elements, so denial of relief was proper; issue effectively moot |
| Whether Holmes met Civ.R. 60(B) requirements to set aside default judgment | LexisNexis: Holmes did not allege operative facts showing a meritorious defense or excusable neglect | Holmes: he had meritorious defenses (improper venue, arbitration, incorrect damages) and reasonably believed an extension was granted | Court: Holmes’ assertions were conclusory; he failed to make prima facie showing of meritorious defense and failed to show excusable neglect; no abuse of discretion in denying relief |
| Proper interpretation/effect of parties’ alleged extension agreement | Plaintiff: no binding court-ordered extension; deadlines remained | Holmes: oral agreement with plaintiff’s counsel granted extra time; misunderstanding excusable | Court: oral agreement not presented to court; Holmes should have notified court or sought extension; his failure did not constitute excusable neglect |
| Whether trial court should have transferred venue after default judgment | Plaintiff: transfer unnecessary after final judgment | Holmes: venue improper; motion to transfer timely when filed | Court: transfer motion moot because default judgment was entered prior to transfer motion; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. Arc Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (establishes three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (standard of review: Civ.R. 60(B) motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 64 (1985) (movant need only allege a meritorious claim, not prove it, to satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) first prong)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (movant must show why justice requires setting aside a final judgment)
- Miamisburg Motel v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 88 Ohio App.3d 117 (1993) (phone call to opposing counsel alone generally insufficient to constitute an appearance to preclude default; trial court’s denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief not an abuse when only a phone call exists)