Cautela Bros. Cement Contractors v. McFadden
Decision Date | 10 October 1972 |
Citation | 32 Ohio App.2d 329,291 N.E.2d 539,61 O.O.2d 506 |
Parties | , 61 O.O.2d 506 CAUTELA BROS. CEMENT CONTRACTORS, Appellee, v. McFADDEN et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A motion for relief from a judgment made upon the grounds that the plaintiff fraudulently took judgment is predicated upon Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and is barred if not made within one year after the judgment.
2. A motion for relief, from a cognovit judgment entered without prior notice, alleging defenses of payment, failure of consideration and fraud in the inducement is predicated upon the existence of valid defenses to the plaintiff's claim, is founded upon Civ.R. 60(B)(5), and is not necessarily barred if made more than one year after the judgment; however, such motion must be made within a reasonable time, which may be more or less than one year depending upon the circumstances.
Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Brown & Newman and W. James Hutchins, Columbus, for appellee.
Martin S. Goldberg, Youngstown, and Paul W. Brown, Columbus, for appellants.
This is an appeal from an order by the Franklin County Municipal Court overruling a motion to vacate a cognovit judgment.
The record shows that a cognovit judgment was rendered on the note in question in the trial court on October 19, 1970, and a notation made as follows: 'Notice of Judgment Mailed.' The docket further shows that on November 18, 1970, certificates of judgment were filed in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County; that orders for the production of books and records were made on December 2, 1970, February 11, 1971 and February 22, 1971; that an affidavit in aid of execution was filed February 2, 1971; that orders were issued for the appearance of the judgment debtor on September 20, 1971 and October 21, 1971.
On December 30, 1971, the defendant filed a motion for relief from final judgment, a motion for leave to file an answer and cross-claim and a tendered answer with a cross-claim in which answer defendants denied indebtedness to the plaintiff and claimed the following:
The trial court ruled as follows:
It is from this order of April 21, 1972, that defendants appeal. Defendants' assignment of error is that:
'The Municipal Court abused its discretion in failing to pass upon the tentative validity of the appellants' proffered defense; in failing to conditionally vacate the judgment taken under warrant of attorney; in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PC v. Rika Grp. Corp.
...Color Imaging, Inc., 9th Dist. No. 23101, 2006-Ohio-4077, 2006 WL 2270916, ¶ 16, quoting Cautela Bros. Cement Contractors v. McFadden, 32 Ohio App.2d 329, 332, 291 N.E.2d 539 (10th Dist.1972). Although the time between filing the cognovit judgments and the motions to vacate was lengthy, App......
-
City of Middletown v. Campbell, CA
...and circumstances of each case. See Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249-250, 416 N.E.2d 605 ; Cautela Bros. v. McFadden (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 329, 291 N.E.2d 539 . In the case at bar, appellees concede they were in error not to file an answer. The record indicates that upon the......
-
Coulson v. Coulson
...finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Cautela Bros. v. McFadden (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 329, 291 N.E.2d 539 , and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Clinton County in Laughlin v. Hibbard (1974), 70 O.O.2d 194, Ohio App.,......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Willoughby, 47477
...to vacate affirmed since want of consideration and duress are valid affirmative defenses in note action); Cautela Bros. v. McFadden (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 329, 291 N.E.2d 539 (denial of Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate cognovit judgment reversed since fraud, payment and failure of consideratio......