Third Fed. S. & L. v. Krych, 2013 Ohio 4483

Third Federal filed foreclosure action on Sept. 4, 2007 seeking $157,000 from borrowers.
Borrowers answered with affirmative defenses and counterclaims including TILA, RESPA, improvident lending, negligence, misrepresentation, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing.
Third Federal moved for summary judgment on foreclosure and on counterclaims; trial court denied on foreclosure and on TILA/RESPA counterclaims but granted summary judgment on several other counterclaims.
Trial court added Civ.R. 54(B) language, stating no just reason for delay, thereby creating a partial, but allegedly final, order.
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because remaining counterclaims were interrelated with disposed claims, and Civ.R. 54(B) was not warranted to serve judicial economy in this context.
The appellate court reasoned that resolving these interrelated claims together better serves judicial economy and justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the partial summary judgment is a final, appealable order	Krych argued the court’s Civ.R. 54(B) dismissal created a final order	Third Federal contended the order disposed of all claims or was final under Civ.R. 54(B)	Not final; jurisdiction lacking; appeal dismissed
Whether counterclaims should be construed as affirmative defenses	Borrowers argue counterclaims should be treated as defenses to foreclosure	Third Federal treats them as independent counterclaims rather than defenses	Not reached due to lack of final order; dismissal occurred on finality grounds

Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (finality requirements for Civ.R. 54(B))
Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (requirements for finality of judgments; Civ.R. 54(B))
Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 352 (1993) (Civ.R. 54(B) determination; judicial economy considerations)