Maxim Ents., Inc. v. Haley
2011 Ohio 6734
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Maxim Enterprises sued Haley after subcontractors assigned rights; Maxim claimed assignments invalid.
- Countrywide Field Services Corporation hired Maxim; Maxim hired subcontractors to inspect/preserve properties.
- Countrywide was purchased by Bank of America; Haley named Bank of America fka Countrywide Field Services Corporation in his third‑party complaint.
- Bank of America did not answer; Haley obtained a default judgment against Bank of America.
- Bank of America moved to vacate the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B); trial court granted the motion.
- Appellant Haley appeals the vacate judgment order, arguing it is appealable; court dismisses for lack of Rule 54(B) finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order vacating the judgment appealable under Rule 54(B)? | Haley argues the order is a final, appealable ruling | Bank of America argues the order is not a final appealable order under Civ.R. 54(B) | No; order not appealable under Civ.R. 54(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 49 Ohio St.2d 158 (Ohio Supreme Court 1977) (timing and method of appeals governed by Supreme Court rules)
- Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (Ohio Supreme Court 1972) (Rule 54(B) applicability to final judgments in multiparty/multiclaim cases)
- State v. Collins, 24 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio Supreme Court 1970) (constitutional and statutory framework for appellate jurisdiction)
- Sullivan v. Anderson Twp., 122 Ohio St.3d 83 (2009-Ohio-1971) (two-step analysis for appealability in multi-claim/multi-party cases)
- Milton Banking Co. v. Dulaney, 182 Ohio App.3d 634 (2009-Ohio-1939) (civil rule 54(B) requirements for appealability in partial judgments)