Opinion

Wolford v. Newark City School District Board of Education

  • 73 Ohio App. 3d 218
  • 596 N.E.2d 1085
  • 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2055
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Apr 19, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Milligan
On the bench
Milligan, Smart, Gwin
Cited by
18 cases
Authority
More cited than 90.2%

The opinion

Milligan, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Julia Wolford, procured a default judgment against the Board of Education of the Newark City School District in the Licking County Common Pleas Court. The default judgment continued the matter for a determination of damages. Thereafter, the board filed a motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment, and the court eventually granted Civ.R. 60(B) relief.

From that judgment, the plaintiff appeals, claiming favor of R.C. 2505.02 and

Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.

(1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88 , 541 N.E.2d 64, 66-67 , wherein the court held:

“R.C. 2505.02 defines three types of final orders: (1) an order affecting a substantial right in an action which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment; (2) an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding or made upon summary application after judgment; or (3) an order vacating or setting aside a judgment or granting a new trial. * * * ”

The genesis of this right of appeal where the work of the trial court is not completed is

GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries

(1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 1 O.O.3d 86 , 351 N.E.2d 113 .

The unique hitch in this case is that the default judgment, from which relief was granted, was itself not a final, appealable order.

Chef Italiano, supra.

*220

Appellee persuasively argues that a default judgment as to only part of the claim is distinguishable from the default judgment reviewed and held reviewable in

GTE Automatic, supra.

Appellant, by rejoinder, persuasively argues that if the original default judgment was not a final judgment, Civ.R. 60(B) relief was inappropriate.

This issue engraves one more chapter onto the continuing saga frustrating Ohio lawyers as to what is, or is not, a final, appealable order.

We conclude that because the judgment vacated was itself not a final, appealable order, the judgment vacating the partial, incomplete judgment is not a final, appealable order.

The motion of appellee is sustained, and the cause is dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Motion sustained.

Smart and Gwin, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.