Medina County Courthouse

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Summit County Civil Appellate Decisions, December, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released  numerous opinions on appeals from civil cases from Summit County courts. My summaries of the opinions that I was able to view appear below. 

Stetz v. Copley Fairlawn School Dist., 2013-Ohio-5411, released on December 11, 2013, reversed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's decision that the school district was not entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals held that whether the school district is entitled to such immunity depends on a three tier analysis. In this case the trial court did not complete such an analysis and therefore the denial of the motion for summary judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.  

Hendy v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-5786, issued on December 31, 2013, affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. The assignments of error broke down into two groups. One group alleged that the trial court had violated Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct through its orders and the magistrate's recommendations. All of those assignments of error were overruled because the Court of Appeals doesn't have jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

The other assignments of error were overruled because the appellant had not specifically objected to the trial court's order as required by Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(b). Since such objections weren't filed the only way that the appellant could get relief was to have shown plain error but since he didn't argue plain error nor did he explain why the appellate court should adopt a plain error standard of review. 

Witschey, Witschey & Firestine Co., L.P.A. v. Daniele, Jr.,  2013-Ohio-5724, released on December 26, 2013, reversed and remanded a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court that a real estate conveyance wasn't fraudulent under R.C. Chapter 1336. The trial court R.C. 1336.08 (A) to rebut the presumption of fraud that arose because the transferror had not received any compensation for the transfer. The trial court's reasoning was that since the original transfer was a gift then when the defendant son transferred the property back to the defendant parents it was a transfer for valuable consideration or a reasonable equilavent value. The Court of Appeals found that this was not correct. It remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to use R.C. 1336.04 (A) (1) to the evidence already introduced. 

Black v. Stouffer Realty, Inc., 2013-Ohio-5723 was released on December 26, 2013. Black, Stouffer Realty, and a sales person for Stouffer Realty filed assignments and cross-assignments of error. All the assignments and cross-assignments of error were overruled. 

When the case was submitted to the jury there was a form which allowed the jury to determine whether Black was entitled to attorney fees and punitive damages. The jury indicated that she was entitled to attorney fees but not punitive damages. Black argued that this was an inconsistent verdict and therefore the jury should be re-instructed and returned for further deliberation. The trial court refused. On appeal Black argued that Civ. R. 49 (B) applied to the facts in her case. That Rule deals with the procedure that is to be applied when there are inconsistent answers to jury interrogatories. The appellate court, however, the the form was a a general verdict form and not the same as jury interrogatories. Therefore that assignment of error was overruled. 

Black also assigned as error the use of the verdict form described above. Since Black didn't object at the time the trial court sent the verdict form to the jury she was limited to a plain error analysis. The appellate court found that the trial court did not commit plain error. The other assignments of error made by the parties can be seen by clicking on the link to the opinion above. 

Ward v. Ohio State Waterproofing, 2013-Ohio-5560, released on December 18, 2013, affirmed the decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award. The Court of Appeals noted that when considering a motion to vacate an arbitration award the court is guided by R.C. 2711.10. That section allows a court to vacate an award if it finds that the award was procured by fraud, corruption or undue means; if there evident partiality or corruption on part of any of the arbitrators; if the arbitrators were guilty of certain specified misconduct; and if the arbitrators exceeded their power, or so imperfectly executed them that final award could not be made. Applying that statute to the facts of the case, the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed that denial. 

Lasater v. Vidahl, 2013-Ohio-5558, released on December 18, 2013, affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court denying a motion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil lawsuit. The awarding of attorney fees is allowed in certain circumstances by R.C. 2323.51. The granting of a motion for attorney fees under that section or the denial of attorney fees is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Applying that standard to the facts in this case the appellate court concluded that the denial should be affirmed. 

111 N. Main St., Inc. v. Von Allmen Ents., L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5554, released on December 19, 2013, affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement whereby von Allmen Enterprises and the Von Allmens had agreed that they owed certain sums of money to 111 N. Main Street for arrearages of rent on a lease. Mr. Von Allmen appeared at a settlement conference and agreed that they money was owed and that he personally guaranteed the arrearage amount. When the payments weren't made, 111 N. Main filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the settlement agreement. 

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court never had personal jurisdiction over the Von Allmens as individuals because service was never obtained on them, they never waived service, or were ever served personally with the motion to enforce the agreement. Since there was no personal jurisdiction then the trial court could not enter judgment against them as individuals. 
The appellate court also considered the assignments of error by Von Allmen Enterprises and overruled them. 

Osburn Towing v. Akron, 2013-Ohio-5409, released on December 11, 2013, reversed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court. The decision was reversed because the appellate court found that the Common Pleas Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The reason why the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction was that the act that Osburn was complaining about was a legislative act and therefore could not be reviewed under R.C. 2506.01. Since the appellate court found that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, it did not address the other issues raised on appeal by the City of Akron. 



No comments: