2020 Ohio 3041
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Stollars sued TRST, LLC for breach of a promissory note and security agreement after TRST allegedly stopped payments and transferred the secured property.
- The complaint was served on TRST’s sole member, Rick Starr, by certified mail; Starr claims he sent responsive documents to Stollars’ counsel but did not file anything with the court.
- Stollars obtained a default judgment on July 25, 2019 after TRST failed to file a formal answer with the court.
- TRST timely moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), asserting a meritorious defense and that Starr’s misunderstanding of legal procedure constituted excusable neglect.
- The trial court found the motion timely and that a meritorious defense was alleged, but denied relief because (1) Starr’s claimed response was not in the record or received by counsel and (2) Starr’s actions risked unauthorized practice of law and did not show excusable neglect.
- TRST appealed, assigning error to the denial of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion and to the court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief (default judgment) | Stollars: TRST failed to show excusable neglect; claimed responsive documents were not received; Starr’s actions amounted to unauthorized practice of law | TRST: Motion was timely, alleged meritorious defenses, and Starr’s lack of legal knowledge/expertise was excusable neglect | Affirmed. Court held meritorious defense and timeliness established but excusable neglect not shown; reliance on a non‑attorney was improper and amounted to willful disregard of court process |
| Whether trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the 60(B) motion | Stollars: No hearing required because TRST did not establish entitlement to relief (no excusable neglect) | TRST: Motion contained evidentiary affidavits and meritorious defenses, so Kay/Coulson require a hearing | Affirmed. No hearing required because factual allegations did not support excusable neglect or entitlement to relief under Civ.R. 60(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (establishes the three‑part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (explains when a hearing is required on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (standard that Civ.R. 60(B) motions are within trial court's discretion)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (adopting the rule that motions alleging operative facts warranting relief should receive a hearing to verify those facts)