RiverPark Group, LLC. v. City of Dublin
2019 Ohio 723
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- RiverPark sued City of Dublin alleging trespass and sought a TRO after Dublin initiated eminent domain quick-take for roadway easements and entered RiverPark's property.
- Dublin litigated eminent domain in a separate action; a jury later awarded just compensation and easements to Dublin.
- RiverPark and Dublin reached a settlement in the TRO action in late June 2016; the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
- RiverPark's original counsel moved to withdraw and reported that RiverPark’s principal sought to rescind the settlement; Dublin moved to enforce the settlement.
- Nearly one year after dismissal, RiverPark (with new counsel) filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(3) motion to vacate the dismissal, alleging Dublin committed fraud and breached the settlement.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion as procedurally defective for failing to (1) specifically allege a meritorious claim/defense and (2) address whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time; RiverPark appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying Civ.R. 60(B)(3) relief | RiverPark: it has a meritorious claim, shows fraud by Dublin, and filed within one year | Dublin: RiverPark failed to satisfy all three GTE factors; motion is procedurally flawed and untimely | Court: No abuse; RiverPark failed to allege meritorious claim and did not show reasonable timeliness, so denial proper |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion | RiverPark: Emerick and related cases require hearing when motion alleges specific facts that, if true, justify relief | Dublin: No hearing required because RiverPark did not plead specific meritorious facts to warrant relief | Court: No hearing required where movant did not set forth specific facts showing a meritorious claim/defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (Civ.R. 60(B) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (requirement to satisfy all Civ.R. 60(B) elements)
- Your Fin. Cmty. of Ohio, Inc. v. Emerick, 123 Ohio App.3d 601 (10th Dist. 1997) (hearing required when motion alleges specific facts that would justify relief)
- Twinsburg Banking Co. v. RHEA Constr. Co., Inc., 9 Ohio App.3d 39 (9th Dist. 1983) (same rule as Emerick)