2020 Ohio 237
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs-Appellants (Allen B. Miller et al.) filed a second application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A)(1) on October 9, 2019 after this court had previously granted an initial application to clarify its opinion but affirmed dismissal of the Marketable Title Act (MTA) claim.
- The court had earlier explained that a gap in the deed chain (a void in the post-severance/pre-root deed history) prevented it from concluding a root-deed exception was a general reference to a prior interest.
- Defendants-Appellees (Mellott and various Hills and others) opposed the second application; appellants filed a reply.
- The appellate court observed that App.R. 26(A) does not authorize second or successive applications for reconsideration.
- The court relied on precedent reaching the same result for successive applications to reopen under App.R. 26(B).
- The court denied the second application for reconsideration, leaving the trial court’s dismissal of the MTA claim intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissibility of a second/successive App.R.26(A) reconsideration | Miller sought a second reconsideration to correct/clarify the prior decision | Successive reconsideration applications are not authorized; prior decision stands | Denied — App.R.26(A) does not permit second/successive reconsideration |
| Whether a root-deed exception is a general reference (affecting MTA claim) | Miller contended the exception should be treated as a general reference to a prior interest | Defendants argued the record lacks the necessary deed history to support that conclusion | Held previously and reiterated: record gap prevents finding a general reference; MTA dismissal affirmed |
| Whether App.R.26(A) grounds (obvious error/inadvertent omission) were met | Miller argued the court erred or failed to fully consider an issue | Defendants argued no such error and that the attempt is successive | Court found no basis for a second reconsideration and denied the application |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Mellott, 130 N.E.3d 1021 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (appellate opinion affirming dismissal of MTA claim and explaining deed-record gap issue)
- State v. Peeples, 652 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1995) (Ohio Supreme Court holding successive applications to reopen under App.R.26(B) are not permitted)