Strinka v. Witten
2012 Ohio 539
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Strinka sued Witten for breach of contract, CSPA violations, and fraud arising from repairs to his truck at Affordable Auto Repair starting December 2006.
- Strinka alleges improper repairs and misrepresentations; Witten contends repairs were performed properly and the vehicle had high mileage.
- A default judgment was entered against Witten, later vacated after relief from judgment was granted due to improper service.
- In August 2010 Strinka moved for summary judgment; Witten’s counsel withdrew in September 2010, and the court granted summary judgment for Strinka on October 27, 2010.
- Shortly thereafter a different lawyer appeared for Witten and moved for relief from judgment; the trial court granted relief and vacated the October 27 judgment.
- Strinka appeals the relief-from-judgment ruling; the appellate court affirms, finding support for excusable neglect and a meritorious defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted relief from judgment | Strinka argues relief from judgment was improper and that Witten lacked excusable neglect and a meritorious defense | Witten contends he had excusable neglect due to counsel withdrawal and a meritorious defense to the claims | Yes; relief from judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St. 2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (defines criteria for granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, relief grounds, and reasonable time)
- Rose Chevrolet Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (merits standard for asserting a meritorious defense under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Kay v. Marc Glassman Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (remedial nature of Civ.R. 60(B) and liberal construction)
- EMC Mortgage Co. Inc. v. Atkinson, 2011-Ohio-59 (Ohio 2011) (clarifies that motions under Civ.R. 60(B) are subject to reasonable-time and standard review)