Pertuset v. Hull, 2020 Ohio 6942

Carl and Vera Pertuset owned a 181.458-acre farm subject to a foreclosure action; the property was sold at sheriff’s sale on November 14, 2012, and deeded to Brandon and Jeana Hull.
The Pertusets were removed from the property by sheriff on January 15, 2015.
On October 26, 2015 the Pertusets (with several additional plaintiffs) sued the Hulls for conversion, replevin, and damages alleging removal/destruction of personal property and livestock.
The Hulls sold livestock left on the premises and deposited $19,723.51 in proceeds with the court in June 2016, indicating willingness to pay whoever was entitled.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hulls on all counts on September 20, 2018 but made no ruling on distribution of the $19,723.51.
Appellants appealed; the Fourth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the September 20, 2018 order was not a final, appealable order due to the unresolved funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court's Sept. 20, 2018 Decision & Order granting summary judgment to the Hulls is a final, appealable order	Pertuset: the grant of summary judgment disposed of all claims against the Hulls and is appealable	Hull: the court left the $19,723.51 deposit undetermined, so the order did not resolve all claims and is not final	The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not final and appealable (the distribution of the deposited funds remained unresolved)

No officially reported (published) reporter-cited cases were relied on in this opinion. The court’s dismissal rested on Ohio final-judgment/appealability principles as applied to the unresolved registry funds.