U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. AntoineU.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Antoine
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Shaunna Antoine, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., on its complaint in foreclosure. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} U.S. Bank filed its complaint in foreclosure on June 19, 2017, alleging that Ms. Antoine had defaulted on a note and seeking to enforce the mortgage securing U.S. Bank‘s interest in the subject property located at 1082 Roslyn Avenue in Akron, Ohio. On August 15, 2017, Ms. Antoine appeared pro se to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. In her motion, Ms. Antoine argued that she had not been served with the complaint because she temporarily moved from the 1082 Roslyn Avenue address to 1212 Arnold Street in Akron, Ohio. Subsequently,
{¶3} The trial court held a pretrial conference on August 31, 2017, and issued an order establishing a deadline requiring that ”[a]ll dispositive motions shall be filed on or before November 1, 2017.” (Emphasis sic.) U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on October 3, 2017. Counsel for U.S. Bank certified that a copy of the motion was sent to Ms. Antoine by ordinary U.S. mail at the 1212 Arnold Street address. On October 18, 2017, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a decree of foreclosure.
{¶4} Counsel for Ms. Antoine appeared and filed a
{¶5} Ms. Antoine appealed the judgment entry and decree of foreclosure to this Court on November 17, 2017. While the first attempted appeal was pending, the trial court issued an order denying Ms. Antoine‘s motion for relief from judgment. However, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Ms. Antoine‘s
{¶6} This Court dismissed the attempted appeal for lack of a final appealable order on January 3, 2018. The trial court issued an amended judgment entry and decree of foreclosure on February 27, 2018. Ms. Antoine appealed the amended judgment entry and subsequent order of sale, and presents one assignment of error for our review.
II.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred as a matter of law, abused its discretion, and violated [Ms. Antoine]‘s due process rights when it granted summary judgment in this case prior to its deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions.
{¶7} In her assignment of error, Ms. Antoine contends that the trial court erred by setting a dispositive motion deadline, and then ruling on U.S. Bank‘s motion for summary judgment before the dispositive motion deadline and “essentially ending the case before [Ms. Antoine] * * * had an opportunity to file any dispositive motions[.]”
{¶8}
{¶9} On October 3, 2017, less than a month before the deadline for filing a dispositive motion, U.S. Bank filed its motion for summary judgment. The version of
The motion shall be served in accordance with
Civ.R. 5 . Unless otherwise provided by local rule or by order of the court, the adverse party may serve responsive arguments and opposing affidavits within twenty-eight days after service of the motion, and the movant may serve reply arguments within fourteen days after service of the adverse party‘s response.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶10} The fourteen days provided by Loc.R. 7.14(C)(1) passed without a response from Ms. Antoine in opposition to the motion. The trial court granted U.S. Bank‘s motion on October 18, 2017—fifteen days after U.S. Bank filed the motion. Nonetheless, Ms. Antoine argues that the ruling was “premature” and contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it “resolved the issues pending before the court without even taking into consideration [Ms. Antoine]‘s ability to file motions or [her] position.”
{¶11} “[A] trial court has the inherent power to control its own docket and the progress of proceedings in its court.” Pavarini v. City of Macedonia, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20250, 2001 WL 390070, *3 (Apr. 18, 2001). Accordingly, this Court reviews docketing decisions—such as the trial court‘s procedural decisions regarding the filing, hearing, and disposition of a motion for summary judgment—for an abuse of discretion. See id., see also GMAC Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jacobs, 196 Ohio App.3d 167, 2011-Ohio-1780, ¶ 7 (reviewing a trial court‘s denial of a motion for an extension of time for an abuse of discretion), McLemore v. Mosley, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 97CA006852, 1998 WL 470024, *2 (holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by ruling without an oral hearing once the matter is ripe for review), Galland v. Meridia Health Sys., Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21763, 2004-Ohio-1416, ¶ 6 (reviewing a denial of
{¶12} Ms. Antoine has not cited to any authority to support her contention that she had a substantive right to file a dispositive motion through November 1, 2017. We note that, “[a]s applied to summary judgment, procedural due process requires that a nonmoving party have an opportunity to respond before the adjudication of a motion for summary judgment.” M-N N. Chase II, L.L.C. v. Roe, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25694, 2011-Ohio-4071, ¶ 8, quoting Village of Harbor View v. Jones, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-356, 2010-Ohio-6533, ¶ 37. However, once the required filings are in the record, the trial court is free to rule on a pending motion for summary judgment. See McLemore; Galland at ¶ 7 (“It is well settled that, when a party fails to request a continuance, or when such a continuance is not supported by affidavits pursuant to
{¶14} By granting U.S. Bank‘s motion for summary judgment, the trial court made the determination that no genuine issues of material fact were in dispute and that reasonable minds could only conclude that U.S. Bank was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, that decision eliminated any basis for Ms. Antoine to move for summary judgment. Had Ms. Antoine successfully defended U.S. Bank‘s motion for summary judgment, the case could have remained pending and Ms. Antoine would have been free to file her own dispositive motion through the November 1, 2017 cut-off. However, Ms. Antoine has failed to demonstrate that the trial court was under any obligation to refrain from ruling on U.S. Bank‘s summary judgment motion. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment and disposing of the matter prior to expiration of the leave granted to the parties to file dispositive motions.
{¶15} Regarding the additional arguments Ms. Antoine raised in her merit brief and during oral argument, this Court remains cognizant of the scope of our review on appeal. As we
{¶16} Ms. Antoine‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶17} Ms. Antoine‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
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. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
TEODOSIO, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KANI HARVEY HIGHTOWER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ANN MARIE JOHNSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.