2012 Ohio 5758
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- USB sought foreclosure relief; mortgage granted 2004–2005 with three parcels; leasehold interest of T-Mobile recorded 2006; T-Mobile asserted lease survives foreclosure; decree drafted and amended to protect T-Mobile’s lease; USB failed to consult owner and two amendments subordinated USB’s lien; USB sought Civ.R. 60(B) relief in 2011; court denied relief and USB appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civ.R. 60(B)(1) excusable neglect applies? | USB alleges attorney's conduct was excusable neglect. | T-Mobile contends no excusable neglect. | No, excusable neglect not shown. |
| Civ.R. 60(B)(5) catchall applies? | USB argues additional reason justifying relief. | Defendant contends 60(B)(5) not applicable. | No, not applicable; 60(B)(1) controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (standard for abuse of discretion review; imputation of attorney acts to client)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion meaning of arbitrary or unconscionable)
- Len-Ran, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Group, 2007-Ohio-4763 (Ohio 2007) (excusable neglect analysis; inaction vs. affirmative act)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (excusable neglect standard; importance of attorney conduct)
- Poe v. Ferguson, 2008-Ohio-1442 (Ohio 2008) (excusable neglect; stripping prejudice precedent)
- Steinriede v. Cincinnati, 2011-Ohio-1480 (Ohio 2011) (attorney dismissal of client’s claims as neglectful conduct)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (catchall 60(B)(5) applicability guidance)
- Argo Plastic Prod. Co. v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio 1984) (attorney conduct imputed to client; standard for relief)