Suon v. Mong
2018 Ohio 4187
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Nancy Suon sued Khan Mong in municipal court for breach of a promissory note demanding $5,000; the signed, notarized note dated November 27, 2015 was attached to the complaint.
- Mong filed a pro se letter denying he borrowed money or signed the note; the court treated the letter as an answer.
- Suon moved for leave and then for summary judgment, submitting affidavits (her and the notary) and the note; the court granted summary judgment for $5,000 plus costs and interest on August 30, 2017.
- Mong sought a continuance and then counsel; those requests were denied. A wage garnishment was issued thereafter.
- Mong filed a timely Civ.R. 60(B) motion claiming excusable neglect (does not read English) and alleging meritorious defenses (witnesses who would deny signing or describe a fraud claim), but offered no affidavits or sworn evidence supporting those allegations.
- The trial court denied relief; Mong appealed only the denial of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion (not the original summary-judgment entry).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Suon) | Defendant's Argument (Mong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may review summary-judgment ruling when appeal is from denial of Civ.R. 60(B) | Suon argued judgment was final and properly entered | Mong attempted to challenge summary judgment via appeal of 60(B) denial | Court: No jurisdiction to review the original summary judgment because Mong failed to appeal that final order within 30 days |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief without a hearing | Suon argued Mong presented only unsworn allegations and no operative facts warranting a hearing | Mong argued excusable neglect (illiteracy/English barrier) and asserted meritorious defenses and witnesses | Court: Denial affirmed—Mong failed GTE test (no sworn evidence of meritorious defense; no operative facts showing excusable neglect); no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (motion for relief is not a substitute for direct appeal)
- Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684 (Civ.R. 60(B) may not be used to circumvent appeal deadlines)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (establishes GTE test for Civ.R. 60(B))
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (hearing required only if operative facts supporting relief are alleged and evidenced)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)