Van Wert v. Akron Metro. Regional Transit Auth.
2016 Ohio 8072
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 13, 2012, Wiladine Van Wert was killed when her car collided with a train; her husband/executor Thomas Van Wert sued CVSR and AMRTA for negligent death.
- Van Wert filed an initial suit in 2013; he failed to respond to Requests for Admissions, and defendants relied on those admissions in seeking summary judgment.
- After dismissing and refiling the action in 2014, defendants again moved for summary judgment relying on the 2013 admissions and an eyewitness affidavit.
- Van Wert attempted to file (by fax) a motion to withdraw/amend the 2013 admissions and sought extensions to conduct discovery; the faxed withdrawal motion was not accepted to the clerk’s file due to page limits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in October 2014 based on the 2013 admissions; the Fifth District affirmed in August 2015 on Van Wert’s appeal limited to denial of a Civ.R. 56(F) extension.
- In October 2015 Van Wert filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the October 2014 judgment, arguing the withdrawal/amend motion was never filed due to the clerk’s fax rejection; the trial court denied relief as barred by law-of-the-case and res judicata, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief is available to vacate summary judgment based on an allegedly unfiled motion to withdraw/amend prior admissions | Van Wert: the motion to withdraw/amend admissions was filed by fax but rejected by the clerk due to page limits; this filing error justifies 60(B) relief | Defendants: Van Wert could and should have raised the filing issue before the trial court or on direct appeal; Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for appeal and res judicata/law-of-the-case bar relief | Trial court affirmed: 60(B) relief denied because the issue was or could have been raised earlier; law-of-the-case/res judicata preclude relief and Van Wert failed GTE prerequisites for 60(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (trial court’s Civ.R. 60(B) decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate standard for abuse of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (failure to meet any GTE requirement mandates denial)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (purpose of law-of-the-case doctrine: consistency and finality)
- Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 2006) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for appeal)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (res judicata bars successive motions raising issues that were or could have been litigated)
- Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio App.3d 478 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981) (res judicata principles apply to relief motions)
- Weir v. Kebe, 29 Ohio App.3d 53 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (law-of-the-case described as binding on subsequent proceedings)