Tax Ease Ohio, L.L.C. v. Jones
2017 Ohio 9053
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tax Ease, L.L.C. filed a foreclosure complaint May 30, 2017, alleging it purchased tax certificates that gave it the first lien on 5090 Altrim Road (Delaware County) for delinquent taxes and sought amounts due and sale of the property.
- Service on defendant Eti Jones was perfected June 3, 2017; Jones did not answer or otherwise appear in the case.
- Tax Ease moved for default judgment on July 21, 2017; the trial court entered default judgment and issued a Decree in Foreclosure.
- Jones appealed pro se, challenging the tax assessment level and claiming she had arranged to pay after receiving a personal-injury settlement; she did not argue procedural defects in the default entry and did not place those facts in the trial-court record.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting default judgment and noted Civ.R. 55 and the standards for setting aside a default under Civ.R. 60(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was properly entered under Civ.R. 55 | Tax Ease argued Jones failed to answer or defend, entitling it to default judgment | Jones asserted she intended to pay and received a settlement the day default was entered (not in trial record) | Default judgment was proper; no abuse of discretion in granting it |
| Whether appellate court may consider Jones’s extrarecord assertions about tax assessment and settlement | Plaintiff relied on record showing no appearance or defense by Jones | Jones argued taxes were excessive and that she contacted Tax Ease and had settlement funds | Appellate court refused to consider extrarecord facts; limited to trial-court record |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance | Plaintiff argued rules require defense or answer regardless of status | Jones implicitly relied on pro se lenity and equitable considerations | Pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards; no relief from failing to defend |
| Availability of relief from default judgment | Plaintiff argued judgment was final and appropriate | Jones could move in trial court under Civ.R. 60(B) within one year | Court noted Civ.R.55(B) permits setting aside via Civ.R.60(B) and explained standards; remand not required — Jones may file 60(B) motion in trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Equable Ascent Fin., L.L.C. v. Christian, 962 N.E.2d 322 (2011) (default-judgment grant or denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990) (definition and contours of abuse of discretion review)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976) (three-part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))