Pickett v. Rice-Roberts
2014 Ohio 3329
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Landlord Gregory Pickett filed a forcible entry and detainer action and a money-damages claim against Erica Rice-Roberts in Garfield Heights Municipal Court.
- Rice-Roberts answered and asserted a counterclaim alleging retaliatory eviction, premises conditions violations, nuisance, and seeking damages.
- An agreed judgment resolved the eviction/money claims, but the money claim was pending and the counterclaim remained; the December 1, 2011 order dismissed only the money action for lack of appearance.
- On September 26, 2013 Rice-Roberts moved to transfer to common pleas; on October 28, 2013 the court entered a nunc pro tunc order stating the Complaint and Counterclaim were dismissed with prejudice, nunc pro tunc.
- Rice-Roberts appealed, challenging the court’s use of a nunc pro tunc entry to dismiss a counterclaim not previously adjudicated.
- The appellate court vacated the nunc pro tunc dismissal and remanded for proceedings on Rice-Roberts’s counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nunc pro tunc dismissal improperly altered the counterclaim. | Rice-Roberts argues the court had not adjudicated the counterclaim and nunc pro tunc cannot dismiss it. | Rice-Roberts (defendant) contends the nunc pro tunc entry was improper to dismiss an undecided counterclaim. | Yes; the nunc pro tunc dismissal was improper and the counterclaim must be remanded for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97 (1996) (Civ.R. 60(A) allows clerical corrections, not substantive changes)
- Mosley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation, 2011-Ohio-3072 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96070, 2011-Ohio-3072) (nunc pro tunc only for clerical actions; cannot alter judgments)
- Jacks v. Adamson, 56 Ohio St. 397 (1897) (nunc pro tunc reflects what was actually decided, not what might have been)
- Ruby v. Wolf, 39 Ohio App. 144, 177 N.E.2d 240 (1931) (nunc pro tunc limits to recording actual action, not modifying judgments)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263 (2006) (limits and purpose of nunc pro tunc entries)