Pike v. Piatt
2017 Ohio 642
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellees (Jeffrey D. Pike and Mindi A. Pike Trust) filed a quiet-title action asserting mineral rights under the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) had vested in them as surface owners for a 40-acre Monroe County parcel; the mineral interests had been severed in 1961.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees on April 9, 2015, holding the 1989 ODMA applied, no savings events occurred, and the mineral interests vested in appellees.
- Appellants (Maxine Piatt et al.) did not timely appeal the April 9, 2015 judgment. They later filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (March 18, 2016) claiming excusable neglect; the trial court denied relief and this court dismissed the ensuing appeal for using Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for an appeal.
- After the Ohio Supreme Court’s Corban decision, appellants filed a second Civ.R. 60(B) motion (Oct. 7, 2016) seeking relief based on changed law; the trial court denied it, finding a change in unrelated controlling case law is not grounds for Civ.R. 60(B) relief when the original judgment was final.
- Appellants appealed the denial of the second Civ.R. 60(B) motion; appellees moved to dismiss that appeal as untimely and an improper attempt to use Civ.R. 60(B) in place of a timely appeal.
- The Seventh District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to obtain review of a judgment where a timely appeal was not filed and that a subsequent change in controlling law in an unrelated case is not grounds for relief from final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) may be used to obtain relief from a final judgment because of a subsequent change in controlling case law | Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used for that purpose; change in unrelated case law is not grounds for relief | A change in controlling case law (Corban) justifies Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the final judgment | Denied — a subsequent change in unrelated controlling law is not a ground for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for a timely appeal |
| Whether the appeal from the denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief is proper when the underlying judgment was final and no timely appeal was taken | The appeal is improper because appellants are using Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a timely appeal | Appellants say their notice of appeal from the denial was timely and that merits are separate | Dismissed — appeals that seek to review denials of Civ.R. 60(B) used as a substitute for an appeal must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Key v. Mitchell, 81 Ohio St.3d 89 (1998) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for a timely appeal)
- State ex rel. Durkin v. Ungaro, 39 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988) (procedural motions cannot obtain review where no timely appeal was filed)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (1986) (a subsequent change in controlling law in an unrelated proceeding is not grounds for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs., 89 Ohio St.3d 205 (2000) (affirming dismissal where Civ.R. 60(B) seeks to circumvent the appellate timetable)