2020 Ohio 6757
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Osborne sued Kroger for negligence over a prescription error; the case was mediated and the parties reached a settlement on January 11, 2019.
- The trial court entered a dismissal with prejudice on January 25, 2019.
- Osborne filed a combined Civ.R. 60(B) motion and request for post-settlement interest on February 6, 2019, asking the court to vacate the dismissal so it could enforce the settlement and citing surprise over an asserted attorney-fee claim by the Donahey Law Firm.
- Kroger did not oppose vacatur for settlement implementation, moved to interplead settlement funds, and sought dismissal from the case.
- The trial court granted Osborne Civ.R. 60(B) relief on June 28, 2019, resumed limited jurisdiction to resolve settlement disputes, and later dismissed Kroger while retaining jurisdiction over attorney-fee issues between Osborne and the Donahey Law Firm.
- On November 25, 2019, the trial court sua sponte vacated its June 28, 2019 order (holding it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief after the January 25 termination) and denied intervention by the Donahey Law Firm; Osborne appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may sua sponte vacate its prior order granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Osborne: Court lacked authority to vacate its June 28, 2019 order absent a Civ.R. 60(B) motion by a party | Kroger: (no position forcing vacatur); the court ultimately concluded it lacked jurisdiction after termination | Court held a trial court may not sua sponte vacate a prior Civ.R. 60(B) grant; vacatur was improper absent a motion |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(A) authorized the court to correct the June 28 order rather than use Civ.R. 60(B) procedure | Osborne: The change was substantive, not clerical, so Civ.R. 60(A) did not apply | Trial court (implicitly): construed its review as correction of a prior termination error | Court held Civ.R. 60(A) permits only clerical corrections and cannot be used to make substantive changes; rule did not authorize the sua sponte vacatur |
| Finality and proper procedure for vacating judgments | Osborne: Civ.R. 60(B) is the exclusive procedural vehicle to vacate a judgment; its June 28 order granting relief was final | Trial court: treated its later entry as a change in position after sua sponte review | Court held orders granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief are final and may be vacated only through the Civ.R. 60(B) process (i.e., by motion), not sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. City Bank v. Reat Corp., 64 Ohio App.3d 212 (Eighth Dist. 1989) (order granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief is a final order)
- Rice v. Bethel Assocs., Inc., 35 Ohio App.3d 133 (Ninth Dist. 1987) (Civ.R. 60(B) is the exclusive procedural vehicle to vacate judgments)
- State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97 (1996) (Civ.R. 60(A) permits only correction of clerical mistakes apparent on the record)
- Londrico v. Delores C. Knowlton, Inc., 88 Ohio App.3d 282 (Ninth Dist. 1993) (distinguishing clerical corrections from substantive changes under Civ.R. 60(A))