Old Phoenix National Bank v. SandlerOld Phoenix National Bank v. Sandler
On October 31, 1978, defendant’s husband borrowed $5,000 from plaintiff. This amount was not repaid, and plaintiff obtained a judgment against Mr. Sandler in Medina Municipal Court. On July 25, 1979, plaintiff instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Medina County against defendant to recover on her guarantee of the debt. Defendant was served by certified mail on July 28, 1979. Defendant failed to answer, and on October 24, 1979, the court granted plaintiff a default judgment. On April 5, 1983, defendant moved to vacate that judgment, and the court granted defendant’s motion on June 13,1983. Plaintiff appeals.
Assignments of Error
“1. The trial court committed an abuse of discretion, and therefore erred, in vacating its judgment rendered October 24, 1979, in favor of plaintiff-appellant Old Phoenix National Bank, for the reason that defendant-appellee Marian Sandler has not shown a right to relief under Civil Rule 60(B)(4), the stated basis for the trial court’s decision, or under any other provision of Civil Rule 60(B).
“2. The trial court committed an abuse of discretion, and therefore erred, in vacating its judgment rendered October 24, 1979, in favor of plaintiff-appellant Old Phoenix National Bank, for the reason that defendant-appellee Marian Sandler’s motion to vacate was not brought within a ‘reasonable time’ as required by Civil Rule 60(B).”
To prevail on a motion brought under
“* * * (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in
The trial court found defendant presented no evidence which would entitle her to relief under
“* * * the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; * * *.”
Defendant’s claim is that plaintiff obtained its judgment on a guarantee which did not extend to the debt in question, but instead guaranteed a debt which was paid in 1977.
We also conclude that defendant did not meet her burden of demonstrating that she filed her motion within a reasonable time. The movant bears the burden of submitting factual material which demonstrates the timeliness of the motion.
Adomeit
v.
Baltimore
(1974),
Judgment reversed.