Lopez v. Veitran, 2012 Ohio 1216

Lopez filed an eviction action against Veitran in Hamilton County Municipal Court for nonpayment of rent.
Hicks and Agustin, not named as defendants, filed an answer and counterclaim and added themselves to the caption by using 'et al.'
Hicks and Agustin did not file a Civ.R. 24 motion to intervene or a proper motion to intervene.
The magistrate denied the transfer of the counterclaim to the common pleas court, recognizing Hicks and Agustin were not parties.
Common Pleas Court dismissed the counterclaim, then transferred the case back to municipal court; Hicks and Agustin appealed the dismissal.
Appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because Hicks and Agustin were never parties to the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Hicks and Agustin have standing to appeal?	Hicks and Agustin contend they are defendants via 'et al.' and may appeal any adverse rulings.	They were not named in the complaint and thus not proper parties; no standing to appeal.	No standing; appeal dismissed because they were not parties.

State ex rel. Lipson v. Hunter, 2 Ohio St.2d 225 (Ohio 1965) (standing to appeal requires party status)
In re Adoption of T.B.S., 2007-Ohio-3559 (4th Dist. 2007) (merely appearing does not confer party status or appellate rights)
In re Estate of Markovich, 9th Dist. No. 06CA008868 (2006) (party status determines right to appeal; non-parties lack standing)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Ohio, 91 Ohio St.3d 133 (2001) (caption and party designation required for complaint validity)