*1
[Cite as
Gen. Elec. Credit Union v. Meadows
,
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO APPEAL NO. C-150230 : GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT TRIAL NO. A-1308506 UNION, f.k.a. GENERAL ELECTRIC : EVENDALE EMPLOYEES FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, O P I N I O N.
: Plaintiff-Appellee,
: vs.
: SHARON K. MEADOWS,
: Defendant-Appellant.
: and,
: ESTATE OF MIRIAM MEDOW, et al., :
Defendants. Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed Frоm Is: Appeal Dismissed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 30, 2015
Statman, Harris, & Eyrich, LLC, and William B. Fecher , for Plaintiff-Appellee, Montgomery, Rennie & Johnson, LPA, Elaine M. Stoll and Ralph E. Burnham , for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. *2 S TAUTBERG , Judge. This appeal arises from a summary-judgment order issued in a foreclosure
action. Defendant-appellant Sharon K. Meadows and plaintiff-appellee General Electric Credit Union (“G.E.”) moved the trial court for summary judgment on the issue of whether Meadows’s dower interеst in the subject property or G.E.’s mortgage lien had priority in the underlying foreclosure aсtion. The trial court determined that G.E.’s mortgage lien had priority. It therefore overruled Meadows’s motion and granted G.E.’s.
Meadows now appeals that order. At the time of Meadows’s appeal, the foreclosure action was still pending in the trial court. Befоre reaching the merits of Meadows’s appeal, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction in this matter. This court has “such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and
affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of аppeals within the district * * * .” Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), Ohio Constitution.
Where, as here, we are faсed with an appeal from an order that does not dispose of all
claims agаinst all of the parties, we must (1) determine whether the order is “final”
within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02, and, if it is, we must (2) detеrmine whether the
requirements of Civ.R. 54(B) have been met.
Sullivan v. Anderson Twp.
, 122 Ohio St.3d
83,
Finality Under R.C. 2505.02 In Queen City S. & L. Co. v. Foley , 170 Ohio St. 383, 165 N.E.2d 633 (1960), the Supreme Court held that “[i]n a mortgage foreclosure action, а journalized order determining that the mortgage constitutes the first and best lien upon the subjeсt real estate is a judgment or final order from which an appeal may be perfected.” Id. at syllabus (emphasis added). While at first glance this holding appears to control the jurisdictional issue in this cаse, Queen City addressed only the matter of finality under R.C. 2505.02. Civ.R. 54(B) certification was not at issue in that case. Further, Queen City was deсided prior to the series of cases, cited above, that require us to consider whether the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) have been met to properly perfect an aрpeal. We therefore find that Queen City disposes only of the issue that the order before us is “final” under R.C. 2505.02. See id . at 385-387. We must also analyze whether the court’s order met the requirements of Civ.R. 54(B). See Sullivan ; Walburn ; Denham ; Nobel .
Civ.R. 54(B) The genеral purpose of Civ.R. 54(B) is to balance the policy against piecemeal аppeals with the possible injustice sometimes created by the delay of appeals. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co ., 49 Ohio St.2d 158, 160, 359 N.E.2d 702 (1977).
Civ.R. 54(B) provides:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * *, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. In the absеnce of a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order * * * which adjudiсates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not 3 *4 C
terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Thus, the appealability of a final order disposing of fewer than all of the
claims in an action is a determinatiоn that must be made by the trial court.
See IBEW
Local Union No. 8 v. Vaugh Industries, LLC
,
No Certification, No Jurisdiction
Here, the trial court did not certify its order under Civ.R. 54(B). And all of
the claims as to all of the parties in this case have not yet been dеtermined. We therefore
hold that this appeal has not been perfected, and that we are without jurisdiction in this
matter. In so holding, we overrule
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Omega Design/Build Group,
LLC
, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100018,
Appeal dismissed. UNNINGHAM , P.J., and F ISCHER , J. ., concur. *5 Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.