West v. Rhockel Invest. Group, P.L.L.
2017 Ohio 8147
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brandy West sued Rhockel Investment Group (d.b.a. Pinebrook Tower Apartments) for negligence after a slip-and-fall; a jury returned a $250,000 verdict for West on January 26, 2017, and the trial court entered judgment on January 31, 2017.
- After judgment, West filed a motion for prejudgment interest and a motion to tax litigation expenses as costs; those motions remained pending below.
- Rhockel filed post-trial motions (including a JNOV and a stay) on February 28, 2017; the trial court overruled those motions and denied the stay in an April 26, 2017 entry.
- Rhockel filed a notice of appeal on May 23, 2017, appealing the April 26 entry.
- The Eleventh District reviewed the record and concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the appealed entry was not a final, appealable order while motions for prejudgment interest and costs were unresolved.
- The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte to avoid piecemeal appeals and because resolution of prejudgment interest could require further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 26, 2017 entry was a final, appealable order | West implicitly argued that the judgment on the verdict and the trial court's rulings on post-trial motions produced an appealable order | Rhockel treated the April 26 entry as appealable and filed a notice of appeal | Not final/appealable because motions for prejudgment interest and costs remained pending |
| Whether pending motion for prejudgment interest prevents appeal | West sought prejudgment interest and opposed premature appeal | Rhockel proceeded with appeal despite pending prejudgment-interest motion | Pending prejudgment-interest motion defeats finality; appeal must be dismissed |
| Whether Civ.R. 54(B) could make the order final | West did not obtain a Civ.R. 54(B) certification | Rhockel did not show a Civ.R. 54(B) certificate in the record | No Civ.R. 54(B) language; even if present, prejudgment-interest issue would preclude finality |
| Whether remand or dismissal best serves judicial economy | West argued trial court should resolve pending matters first | Rhockel wanted appellate review now | Court dismissed appeal sua sponte, concluding dismissal (not remand) best avoids piecemeal appeals and preserves judicial economy |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (holding that appellate jurisdiction attaches only to final orders)
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders)
- Miller v. First Internatl. Fid. & Trust Bldg., Ltd., 113 Ohio St.3d 474 (trial court should resolve prejudgment-interest motions before an appeal to promote judicial economy)