Altenheim v. JanuszewskiAltenheim v. Januszewski
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Eileen T. Gallagher, Frank D. Celebrezze Jr., Larry A. Jones Sr.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Altenheim (“Altenheim”) appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to Kasha Januszewski (“Januszewski”) on Altenheim’s claims seeking $24,335 for breach of contract and other claims, in connection with decedent James Stokowski’s (“Stokowski”) admission and care. Altenheim assigns the following errors for our review:
I. The trial court erred in granting [Januszewski’s] motion for summary judgment.
II. The trial court erred in denying [Altenheim’s] motion for summary judgment.
III. The trial court erred in failing to rule on [Altenheim’s] motion for leave to amend its complaint.
IV. The trial court erred in failing to grant [Altenheim’s] motion to compel and failing to rule on [Altenheim’s] associated request for expenses and attorney’s fees for summary judgment.
V. The trial court erred in failing to rule on [Altenheim’s] request for expenses and attorney’s fees in connection with responding to [Januszewski’s] baseless motion for sanctions.
VI. The trial court erred in failing to rule on [Altenheim’s] motion to supplement pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E).
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we dismiss this case for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶3} On July 8, 2015, Altenheim filed a four-claim complaint against Januszewski, alleging that her late father, Stokowski, incurred expenses during his 2014 stay at Altenheim. Altenheim alleged that Januszewski signed Stokowski’s admission
{¶4} Januszewski denied liability and asserted that Stokowski was “fully able to sign on his own behalf” but Altenheim insisted that Januszewski sign the admission agreement as his attorney-in-fact for insurance purposes and indicated that she would not be liable for his care. She asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”), abuse of process, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.
{¶5} Januszewski filed a motion for summary judgment on July 22, 2016, and Altenheim filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on December 30, 2016.
{¶6} On May 3, 2017, the trial court issued the following journal entry:
The court hereby denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant had any duty to pay decedent’s debt to plaintiff. Pursuant to the plaintiff’s admission agreement, Defendant, as decedent’s legal representative and attorney-in-fact, is not personally liable for the decedent’s debts as decedent was not declared mentally incapable of meeting his financial obligations to plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant’s
motion for summary judgment is granted and this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
{¶7} After Altenheim filed its notice of appeal, this court asked the parties to brief the issue of appellate jurisdiction. Januszewski maintains that this court is without jurisdiction because her counterclaims have not been adjudicated and the trial court’s order does not assert that there is no just reason for delay. Altenheim argues that Januszewski cannot challenge the court’s failure to resolve the counterclaims because she did not cross-appeal the trial court’s ruling. We conclude that the May 3, 2017 order is not a final appealable order and we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
{¶8} This court may entertain only those appeals from final judgments or orders. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96, 540 N.E.2d 1381 (1989);
{¶9} An order that adjudicates one or more but fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties must meet the requirements of both
{¶10} However,
{¶11} In this matter, the trial court awarded Januszewski summary judgment on the claims of Altenheim’s complaint but the court did not dispose of any of Januszewski’s counterclaims for relief. It is therefore not final. Scheel at ¶ 21; Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Hohmann, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104290, 2017-Ohio-186, ¶ 17; Demsey v. Sheehe, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100693, 2014-Ohio-2409, ¶ 9-14; Bericic v. Gibson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83387, 2004-Ohio-1458, ¶ 8; Mayfield v. Flagg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97637, 2012-Ohio-1957, ¶ 3. We additionally note that the trial court’s order did not certify that there is not just reason for delay under
{¶12} Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s order granting Januszewski’smotion for summary judgment is not a final and appealable order.
{¶13} Appeal is dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J. CONCUR