2019 Ohio 3868
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint June 19, 2017, against Shaunnah (Shaunna) Antoine for default on a note secured by 1082 Roslyn Ave, Akron.
- Antoine (initially pro se) moved to dismiss, claiming she was not served at the Roslyn address because she temporarily lived at 1212 Arnold St.; the bank then served papers at the Arnold address.
- The trial court set a dispositive-motion window (leave to file) from Sept. 1 through Nov. 1, 2017. U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on Oct. 3, 2017 and certified mailing to Antoine.
- Local Rule 7.14(C)(1) required opposition briefs within 14 days of service; Antoine did not file an opposition within that period. The court granted summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure on Oct. 18, 2017.
- Antoine filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and appealed; the appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by ruling before the Nov. 1 deadline, and affirmed the foreclosure judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated due process by granting summary judgment before the court’s Nov. 1 dispositive-motion cutoff | U.S. Bank argued it complied with leave to file, properly served its motion, and the court may rule once the opposing filings (or time to file them) lapsed | Antoine argued the court prematurely ended her opportunity to file dispositive motions and was deprived of the chance to respond or file her own dispositive motion | The court held no abuse of discretion or due-process violation: Antoine had the 14 days to oppose under local rule, she failed to respond, and the court may rule once the response period has passed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Civ.R. 60(B) motion while appeal is pending)
- GMAC Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jacobs, 196 Ohio App.3d 167 (2011) (appellate review of trial-court scheduling and extension decisions is for abuse of discretion)