2018 Ohio 2845
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Karen Rimmer filed a class action against Citifinancial (Citi) alleging violations of R.C. 5301.36 for failing to record satisfactions of residential mortgages within 90 days after payoff; class certified with a defined class (Jan. 21, 2015).
- Citi’s title search identified 275 class members; notice was mailed to those 275 on Oct. 12, 2016; none opted out.
- Four individuals (Brown, Holden, Rainge, Tubbs) signed affidavits asserting they fit the certified class (no arbitration agreements, untimely recorded satisfactions) but were not included in the mailed notice.
- After denial of motions seeking expanded notice and additional discovery, the court entered judgment (June 15, 2017) for $250 per class member against Citi (total $68,750).
- The four proposed intervenors filed motions to intervene (Civ.R. 24) after judgment; the trial court denied the motions and the court of appeals affirmed, holding the motions were untimely and would have caused prejudice and delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed intervenors were entitled to intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A)(2) | Proposed intervenors claimed a protectable interest in the transaction (they meet class definition and lacked arbitration agreements) and that disposition would impair their ability to recover statutory damages | Citi argued intervention was untimely, would reopen settled matters, require new discovery (e.g., whether arbitration agreements exist), and prejudice the parties | Denied: intervention was untimely and would have caused delay and prejudice; court did not abuse discretion in denying intervention |
| Whether trial court was required to provide written reasons for denying intervention | Appellants argued the court’s brief entry was inadequate and remand for explanation was required | Citi and court relied on absence of a rule mandating findings; appellate courts presume consideration of relevant law | Denied relief: court declined to adopt rule requiring written findings and presumed the trial court considered Civ.R. 24 before ruling |
| Whether intervention after final judgment can be allowed when movants had prior opportunities | Appellants argued they had no adequate representation and discovered their claims only later | Citi and court emphasized prior opportunities for discovery and notice rulings denying expanded notice; movants delayed filing until after judgment | Held: intervention after final judgment is disfavored; movants offered no reasonable explanation for delay, making motions untimely |
| Whether permitting intervention would unduly delay or prejudice class | Appellants asserted common legal issues with the class and sought relief as class members | Citi noted intervention would require resolving factual disputes (existence of arbitration agreements), additional evidence, and reopen case | Held: granting intervention would have imposed significant new issues, discovery, expense and delay; judicial discretion to deny was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (2011) (standard of review for intervention rulings is abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. Meagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 501 (1998) (factors for timeliness of intervention and disfavor of intervention after final judgment)
- Grogan v. T.W. Grogan Co., 143 Ohio App.3d 548 (1998) (elements required for intervention of right under Civ.R. 24(A))
- Likover v. Cleveland, 60 Ohio App.2d 154 (1978) (trial court need not supplement denial of intervention with written opinion)