Huntington Natl. Bank v. Troon Mgt., Ltd.Huntington Natl. Bank v. Troon Mgt., Ltd.
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP, Craig R. Carlson, James P. Botti, and Justin L. Root, for The Huntington National Bank.
W. Vincent Rakestraw, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
BROWN, J.
{¶1} Troon Management, Ltd. (“Troon“), defendant-appellant, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in which the trial court granted the motion to dismiss Troon‘s counterclaim filed by The Huntington National Bank (“Huntington“), plaintiff-appellee. Huntington has filed a motion to dismiss Troon‘s appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶3} On December 1, 2009, Huntington filed a complaint for money judgment and foreclosure against Prep, the owners of Prep, and numerous other defendant entities having a claim on the subject property, including Troon. Also on December 1, 2009, certain defendants filed their answer to numerous counts of the complaint, and the court entered a cognovit final judgment as to those counts in favor of Huntington.
{¶4} On January 29, 2010, Troon filed an answer and counterclaim. Another defendant joined in Troon‘s answer and counterclaim, but that defendant subsequently dismissed its counterclaim. Troon alleged negligent misrepresentation in its counterclaim, asserting that Huntington supplied false information regarding the financing to Prep and other defendants. Troon claimed that Huntington represented that the financing would result in working capital in the amount of $750,000 at the time of closing that would allow Prep to maintain operations; however, the working capital never materialized. Troon asserted it relied upon false representations of Huntington, which were communicated to Troon through Prep, and Huntington knew that Troon would rely upon these representations in agreeing to subordinate its interest in the subject property. Troon alleged it suffered financial damages due to Huntington‘s negligent misrepresentation to Prep.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT TROON‘S COUNTERCLAIM.
{¶6} We first address Huntington‘s motion to dismiss Troon‘s appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Pursuant to
An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following:
(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment;
(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment.
{¶8}
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising out of the same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties are involved, 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 absence of a determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not 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, in multiple-claim or multiple-party actions, if the court enters judgment as to some, but not all, of the claims and/or parties, the judgment is a final appealable order only upon the express determination that there is no just reason for delay. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 22;
{¶9} When determining whether a judgment or order is final and appealable, an appellate court engages in a two-step analysis. First, we must determine if the order is final within the requirements of
{¶10} In the present case, as to
{¶11} With regard to
{¶12} Given the failure to satisfy the requirements of
{¶13} Accordingly, Huntington‘s motion to dismiss Troon‘s appeal is granted, as the decision from which Troon appeals was not a final appealable order.
Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.
FRENCH and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
_________________________