2022 Ohio 1831
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Parties (Morgan and Jones) obtained a final divorce judgment in 2019; their antenuptial agreement and the divorce decree required placing their jointly owned Mount Adams residence for sale and gave each a right of first refusal.
- This court previously affirmed the trial court’s authority to order sale of the residence over Jones’s challenge that it conflicted with the antenuptial agreement.
- After a buyer’s offer arrived in April 2021, Morgan moved for an expedited hearing and for appointment of a receiver to sell the home; the trial court held a hearing April 28 and appointed a receiver on May 3, 2021, granting broad sale authority.
- Jones filed a Civ.R. 59 motion (seeking a new trial, an immediate stay, and approval of his buyout proposal) on June 1; the trial court denied that motion on June 29 and issued additional interim receiver-related entries in July.
- On appeal the court: (1) held the May 3 receiver appointment and the denial of the Civ.R. 59 motion were final and timely appealed; (2) dismissed the appeal as to the July interim entries for lack of jurisdiction (they were not final); and (3) affirmed the receiver appointment, denial of the new trial motion, and denial of approval of Jones’s buyout.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morgan) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of receiver | Receiver was appropriate to effect the divorce judgment and sell the property after a bona fide offer and Jones’s nonresponse | Trial court abused discretion, violated local rules by expedited hearing, denied opportunity to file opposition, and res judicata barred appointment | Appointment upheld: expedited hearing justified, Jones suffered no prejudice, court could reconsider earlier denial; receiver order is a final, appealable order |
| Appealability of additional July entries | N/A (Morgan sought enforcement) | July entries defining receiver duties were appealable | Dismissed as to those entries: interim receivership orders that do not finally dispose of assets or end receivership are not final/appealable |
| Timeliness of appeal | N/A | Jones argued appeal was timely because his timely Civ.R. 59 motion tolled the appeal period | Timely: Civ.R. 59 motion was timely (28 days extended by Memorial Day), so App.R. 4(B)(2)(b) tolled the appeal period; notice filed within 30 days of denial of motion |
| Approval of Jones’s buyout offer under antenuptial right of first refusal | Jones asked court to approve his buyout calculation (claimed Morgan owed him after adjustments) per antenuptial buyout clause | Morgan argued Jones’s proposed adjustments were not permitted by the buyout provision and offer lacked good faith | Denied: court properly refused adjustments outside the contract language (buyout must be at fair market price); trial court found the proposed deal not in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Jones v. Carpenter, 84 N.E.3d 259 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (denial of post-trial motion is appealable only when underlying final order exists)