M.R. Durant Elec., L.L.C. v. Awesome87, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 4331
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background:
- Durant contracted with CAMM (general contractor) to supply labor/materials; Awesome87 owns the property CAMM was building on; CAMM hired Durant and Modern Glass as subcontractors.
- Durant sued Awesome87, SPG87, CAMM, Modern Glass, KeyBank, and county treasurer asserting breach, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, and foreclosing mechanic’s lien; CAMM answered and asserted cross-claims (mis‑captioned as “counterclaims”) against Awesome87.
- CAMM moved for default judgment against Awesome87; Durant then voluntarily dismissed its claims, leaving only CAMM’s claims pending; CAMM’s default motion did not request or prove damages at hearing.
- Awesome87 failed to timely answer CAMM’s pleading, later moved for leave to file instanter and to compel arbitration, arguing excusable neglect due to the law firm’s internal docketing/clerical error and the arbitration clause.
- Trial court denied leave, granted CAMM’s default, and entered $338,334.86 plus interest and lien; Awesome87 moved for Civ.R. 60(B) relief with affidavits showing docketing/secretarial mistakes and produced satisfactions from Durant and Modern Glass showing those subcontractor liens were released.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed denial of relief re: excusable neglect and default (finding no abuse of discretion), but reversed remanding for a damages hearing because CAMM presented no evidence of damages and the award might double‑recover settled subcontractor claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants showed excusable neglect to permit late answer under Civ.R.6(B)/60(B) | CAMM argued the pleadings were served and default was proper because no timely answer was filed | Awesome87 argued clerical/docketing error and mis‑captioning (counterclaim v. cross‑claim) caused the missed deadline; sought leave and 60(B) relief | No abuse of discretion in denying relief for excusable neglect; attorneys could have prevented the error and the firm received the pleading |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting default judgment | CAMM argued default appropriate because defendants failed to plead or defend | Awesome87 argued the default should be denied and answer allowed; arbitration clause should govern | Grant of default was not an abuse of discretion given no timely defense, but related damages award was improper |
| Whether damages award on default was supported by evidence | CAMM implicitly claimed the lien/amount supported recovery | Awesome87 produced lien releases showing subcontractor claims were paid by defendants and argued award double‑counts those amounts | Default judgment damages vacated in part — trial court must hold a damages hearing because CAMM presented no evidence of damages and award may result in double recovery |
| Whether arbitration motion should be compelled after default | CAMM contended arbitration was not excusable neglect; motion to compel filed late | Awesome87 argued contract’s mandatory arbitration clause requires staying and compelling arbitration | Motion to compel arbitration found moot because claims resolved except for damages; arbitration not ordered at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Ragan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard for abuse of discretion review of Civ.R. 60(B))
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three‑part test for Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
- Argo Plastic Prod. Co. v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio 1984) (consequence of failing to satisfy any GTE requirement)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (consider all circumstances in determining excusable neglect)
- Carr v. Charter Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 1986) (default‑judgment damages insufficiently supported requires vacatur under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Portco v. Eye Specialists, Inc., 177 Ohio App.3d 139 (Ohio App.) (mechanic’s lien secures payment but underlying debt is separate)