2011 Ohio 3569
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In consolidated appeals, Akron challenges the trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Ohio Farmers and Ohio Farmers challenges dismissal of a separate confirmation application.
- The underlying dispute began in 2006; the parties submitted to binding arbitration in 2008 with four conditions concerning testimony and timing of hearings and the award.
- Arbitration awarded Ohio Farmers $1,045,699 on January 20, 2009; Ohio Farmers filed notices in the underlying case seeking confirmation, initially in Medina County.
- Akron waited more than a year to respond and argued Medina County had priority; Medina County dismissed the Medina application, citing continuing jurisdiction by Summit County as contemplated by the parties’ agreement.
- While Medina County proceedings were on appeal, Ohio Farmers filed a new confirmation application in Summit County on January 19, 2010 under a new case number with a related-case designation.
- The Summit County trial court treated the Summit application as timely and, without a motion to vacate or modify, confirmed the award; Akron appealed, and Ohio Farmers cross-appealed in a separate, dismissed matter as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Ohio Farmers’ Summit filing | Ohio Farmers filed within one year; timely under 2711.09; good cause exists for any delay. | Akron contends the filing was untimely and improperly designated, amounting to lack of jurisdiction. | Application timely; no abuse of discretion; court affirmed confirmation. |
| Mootness of Ohio Farmers’ related appeal | Cross-appeal moot because Akron’s issues were resolved by the affirmed confirmation. | N/A or not dispositive once Akron’s appeal was resolved. | Ohio Farmers’ related appeal moot; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- NCO Portfolio Management Inc. v. Lewis, 2007-Ohio-3965 (9th Dist. No. 06CA009001, 2007) (trial court may consider late confirmations within reasonable time for good cause)
- Binns v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2009-Ohio-3359 (9th Dist. No. 24522, 2009) (recognizes proceeding nature of 2711 applications and special jurisdiction)
- Geiger v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 2010-Ohio-2850 (10th Dist. No. 09AP-608, 2010) (2711.11 is a hybrid procedure, not a traditional civil action)
- Temple v. Dawn Const. Co., Inc., 2003-Ohio-5251 (8th Dist. No. 82830, 2003) (timeliness within reasonable time and prejudice considerations in 2711 challenges)
- Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Akron, 2010-Ohio-1348 (9th Dist. No. 09CA0013-M, 2010) (Medina County ruling clarifying continuing jurisdiction retained by Summit County)
- Russo v. Chittick, 1988 (Ohio App.3d, 1988) (one-year period is not a strict statute of limitations; reasonable time with good cause governs)
- Greenwald v. Shayne, 2009-Ohio-3384 (12th Dist. No. 2009-Ohio-3384, 2009) (analysis of 2711 proceedings and jurisdictional considerations)