Whitehead v. Star First 1 Fin., Inc.
2017 Ohio 2886
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Whitehead sued Star First 1 Financial, Inc. (alleging it did business as Abby Auto) for deceptive vehicle-sale practices after buying a 2013 Chevrolet Cruze that had prior severe damage and salvage/rebuilt history.
- Star First failed to answer timely; the trial court entered default liability on April 18, 2016, and later awarded Whitehead damages totaling $44,877 after a damages hearing.
- Star First (through counsel) filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from judgment, arguing it was not the proper defendant and that Abby Auto — a separate entity — sold the car.
- Star First supported its motion with affidavits, Secretary of State records, and sale documents (odometer disclosure, bill of sale, buyer’s guide) indicating Abby Auto was the seller; Whitehead submitted a certificate of title showing Star First as the previous owner.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, concluding Star First failed the GTE first prong (no meritorious defense) because the vehicle title listed Star First as the previous owner; it did not address the other two GTE prongs.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in resolving the meritorious-defense prong by effectively deciding disputed facts rather than assessing whether Star First alleged a non-sham meritorious defense; remanded for the trial court to consider the remaining GTE prongs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Star First alleged a meritorious defense under the first GTE prong | Whitehead relied on the certificate of title listing Star First as previous owner to show Star First was the seller and thus liable | Star First argued it was a separate entity from Abby Auto, produced affidavits and corporate records showing Abby Auto sold the car, so the action named the wrong party | Reversed: appellate court held Star First sufficiently alleged a meritorious defense (wrong-party defense) and the trial court abused discretion by weighing contested evidence instead of accepting the allegation as non-sham |
| Whether the trial court properly resolved Civ.R. 60(B) without addressing all GTE prongs | Whitehead argued the first-prong failure resolved the motion; no need to reach other prongs | Star First argued the court should properly evaluate the meritorious-defense allegation and then consider the remaining prongs | Held: court must evaluate remaining GTE prongs in the first instance on remand after recognizing a meritorious defense allegation |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Electric v. Arc Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (establishes three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (movant need only allege a meritorious defense, not prove it)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (standard of review for trial-court rulings on Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)