Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. AkronOhio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Akron
Dated: July 20, 2011
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, the City of Akron appeals the order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Ohio Farmers Insurance. Ohio Farmers appeals an order that dismissed another application to confirm the same arbitration award for lack of jurisdiction. With respect to Akron‘s appeal, this Court affirms. Because we affirm the trial court‘s judgment with respect to Akron‘s appeal, Ohio Farmers’ appeal is moot.
{¶2} Akron and Ohio Farmers were two of the parties to a lawsuit filed in 2006. In 2008, before the matter could be tried, they agreed to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. They asked the trial court to “preserve the case upon the active docket to ensure that the matter [was] concluded consistent with” four conditions. The first condition addressed the scope of testimony, and the second, third, and fourth related to the timing of the arbitration hearing and award. On January 20, 2009, the arbitration panel rendered an award of $1,045,699.00 to Ohio
{¶3} In the meantime, Akron opposed Ohio Farmers’ application to confirm the award in Medina County, arguing that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas had jurisdictional priority over the application by virtue of the fact that the underlying case remained open. Akron did not file an application to modify or vacate the award in either Summit or Medina County. The Medina County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the application on a different basis, concluding that “the parties clearly agreed to have the Summit County Court of Common Pleas maintain continuing jurisdiction over this case” and “the parties [sic] own agreement contemplates the[] Summit County Court of Common Pleas will maintain this matter as an active case.” This Court ultimately affirmed.
{¶4} While the Medina County appeal was pending in this Court, Ohio Farmers filed an application to confirm the award in Summit County. That application, which was filed on January 19, 2010 — just under one year after the award was rendered — was accompanied by a “New Case Designation Form” that listed the underlying trial court matter as a “Related Case.” The application was assigned to the docket of a different trial court judge under a new case number. Again, Akron moved to dismiss the application. The basis for Akron‘s motion to dismiss was that the arbitration agreement required not only that the application be filed in Summit County, but on the docket of the original judge under the same case number. Akron acknowledged that, if successful, its motion would mean that Ohio Farmers could not file a
{¶5} On September 27, 2010, Ohio Farmers filed a motion to confirm the award under the original case number on the docket of the original trial court judge. Akron opposed the motion as untimely, but did not oppose the substance of the motion. The trial court considered the motion as timely filed based on the date Ohio Farmers first filed an application in Summit County. The trial court, therefore, confirmed the award and entered judgment in favor of Ohio Farmers.
{¶6} Two appeals are before this Court. In C.A. No. 25642, Ohio Farmers has appealed from the order dismissing its application to confirm filed under a new case number in Summit County. In C.A. No. 25725, Akron has appealed from the order in the underlying case that confirmed the arbitration award. Because our resolution of Akron‘s appeal in C.A. No. 25725 is dispositive, we address it first.
Akron‘s Assignment of Error Number One
“ASSUMING THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY
R.C. 2711.09 IS PERMISSIVE (AS OPPOSED TO MANDATORY), THE TRIAL COURT NEVERTHELESS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD.”
Akron‘s Assignment of Error Number Two
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DETERMINING THAT THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD IN
R.C. 2711.09 IS PERMISSIVE, RATHER THAN MANDATORY.”
{¶7} In its assignments of error, Akron argues that the trial court erred by considering Ohio Farmers’ untimely application. Notably, Akron does not assign substantive error in the
{¶8} As an initial matter, we must clarify what the trial court did in this case. Although it appears to have considered the parties’ arguments regarding whether the application should be allowed as untimely, the trial court did not ultimately confirm the award on that basis. Instead, the trial court actually considered Ohio Farmers’ application timely filed from the date that it filed the first application in Summit County:
“In the most liberal sense, [Ohio Farmers‘] January 19, 2010 Application was filed within the one-year time frame in the appropriate jurisdiction (Summit County Court of Common Pleas). The Application was improperly captioned and thus was assigned to a different judge and given a new case number. *** Viewing [Ohio Farmers‘] January 19, 2010 Application as timely in this jurisdiction, this Court is inclined to enter judgment on the award.”
{¶9} Having reached the conclusion that it would consider the application timely filed, and in the absence of a motion to vacate or modify the award, the trial court had no choice but to confirm the award. See
{¶10} We agree with the trial court‘s conclusion that Ohio Farmers’ application was timely filed in Summit County.
{¶11}
{¶12} Even if we were to analyze this matter as an appeal from confirmation of an application filed more than one year after the award, we would reach the same result. Under
{¶13} Because we recognized in NCO Portfolio Management that a trial court has discretion to consider an application to confirm filed more than one year after the arbitration award, we review a challenge to the trial court‘s decision in this regard for an abuse of that discretion. In other words, the issue raised by Akron‘s assignment of error is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Ohio Farmers filed its application to confirm within a reasonable time after one year, for good cause, and without prejudice to Akron. See id. at ¶6.
{¶14} Ohio Farmers filed its application to confirm the award in Medina County three days after the arbitration panel rendered its award. When it opposed the application, Akron did not argue that the parties’ agreement required filing in the underlying Summit County case: it argued that because a Summit County case existed, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas had jurisdictional priority over the matter. It is understandable that Akron did not raise the argument because the plain language of the agreed judgment entry does not spell out the extent of the continuing jurisdiction that was retained by the trial court in the original case. Notably, this Court‘s opinion in the Medina County case concluded that the parties’ intent with respect to the agreed judgment entry was that “the Summit County Court of Common Pleas would retain continuing jurisdiction over the matter, including confirmation and appeal of the matter.” Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Akron, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0013-M, 2010-Ohio-1348, at ¶19. This result was based on our analysis of the agreed judgment entry in light of the surrounding circumstances. Our opinion did not conclude that the plain language of the agreed judgment entry required that an application to confirm be filed in Summit County, let alone in the context of the original civil case.
{¶15} Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion to the extent that it considered Ohio Farmers’ application to have been filed outside of the time mentioned by the statute, but within a reasonable time. Considering that the plain language of the agreed judgment entry did not specify the forum in which confirmation proceedings would occur, there was good cause for the delay occasioned by the proceedings in Medina County and the appeal to this Court. Akron points to the attorney‘s fees that it has incurred in opposing Ohio Farmers’ first two applications to confirm as evidence of prejudice. Akron represented to the trial court that it “do[es] not dispute the award,” yet has taken the position that judgment on the entire award should be forfeited because of the parties’ legal disagreement about where the award should be confirmed. We do not find this argument persuasive. Although it is apparent that the parties chose to wrangle about jurisdiction in the Medina County case, it is nonetheless true that a timely application to confirm the award was filed in Summit County. Akron, as well as Ohio Farmers, could have moved to transfer the arbitration matter to the docket of the original trial court judge or to consolidate the two cases. It did not do so. Under these circumstances, to conclude that prejudice to Akron leads to forfeiture of Ohio Farmers’ judgment on the award would be drastic and unwarranted.
Ohio Farmers’ Assignment of Error Number One
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CITY OF AKRON‘S MOTION TO DISMISS OHIO FARMERS’ APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WHERE
R.C. § 2711.16 GRANTS JURISDICTION TO THE SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND WHERE THIS HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN OHIO FARMERS INS. CO. V. AKRON, 2010-OHIO-1348 (MARCH 31, 2010).”
Ohio Farmers’ Assignment of Error Number Two
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CITY OF AKRON‘S MOTION TO DISMISS OHIO FARMERS’ APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO SO CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE ACCESS TO COURTS PROVISION OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION CONTAINED AT
OHIO CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, § 16 .”
{¶17} Ohio Farmers’ assignments of error argue that the trial court in the Summit County confirmation case erred by dismissing its application for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because that case sought confirmation of the same award that was ultimately confirmed in the underlying civil case, and because we have overruled Akron‘s assignments of error challenging the confirmation, Ohio Farmers’ assignments of error are moot, and its appeal in C.A. No. 25642 is dismissed. See, generally,
{¶18} Akron‘s assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas in C.A. No. 25725 is affirmed. In light of our disposition of C.A. No. 25725, Ohio Farmers’ appeal in C.A. No. 25642 is moot, and the appeal is dismissed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J. CONCURS
MOORE, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY, SAYING:
{¶19} I concur in the majority opinion as much as it affirms the trial court because Ohio Farmers’ application was timely filed in the Summit County Common Pleas Court within one
APPEARANCES:
JEROME W. COOK, KENNETH J. WALSH, and RICHARD W. CLINE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
JEFFREY T. HEINTZ, CHRISTOPHER F. SWING, MARK F. CRAIG, and CAROLINE L. MARKS, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.
CHERI B. CUNNINGHAM, Director of Law, for Appellee.