Background

• University sued Hulgin for tuition/fees allegedly owed for Spring 2002; service by ordinary mail; default judgment entered July 2012; garnishment issued to Huntington National Bank; Hulgin moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B); trial court denied; appellate court reverses and remands for relief on Civ.R. 60(B)(1).
• Complaint alleged demand for payment but did not specify when demand was made; Hulgin asserted he withdrew from the 2002 spring semester and did not receive any benefit or owe the debt.
• Hulgin submitted affidavit and supporting emails/letters showing attempts to resolve matter and asserting no indebtedness; University opposed the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
• Trial court based denial solely on untimely answer; court did not address Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and did not adequately weigh excusable neglect.
• Court recognized Civ.R. 60(B)(1) liberal construction for excusable neglect and considered surrounding facts and circumstances, including delayed filing and attempts to resolve the dispute.
• Appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 156 (1976) (liberal construction of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) due to remedial nature)
• Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (deciding courts should decide on merits when possible)
• Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) motions; requires meritorious defense)
• Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (Civ.R. 60(B) applicability and standards)
• Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (1996) (excusable neglect defined and liberally construed)