Cobb v. Cobb

• Decision Date: 30 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-933,79-933
• Parties: , 16 O.O.3d 145 COBB, Appellee, v. COBB et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 124

62 Ohio St.2d 124

403 N.E.2d 991, 16 O.O.3d 145

COBB, Appellee, v. COBB et al., Appellants.

No. 79-933.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 30, 1980.

This cause began as an action by plaintiff-appellee, Elizabeth C. Cobb, for money allegedly owed her under a separation agreement. The Court of Common Pleas entered judgment for defendants-appellants, John L. Cobb, the Central National Bank of Cleveland and The Cleveland Trust Co. on plaintiff's complaint. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 60. By journal entry filed December 6, 1977, the Court of Common Pleas granted this motion; and by its judgment, filed January 23, 1978, that court vacated the earlier judgment for defendants and ordered a new trial.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the December 6th decision on December 30, 1977, and included a praecipe which directed the clerk of the trial court to "(i)mmediately prepare and assemble the original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries." On February 15, 1978, the deputy clerk of the Court of Appeals notified appellants that the complete record of appeal had been filed in compliance with App.R. 11(B).

During oral argument, the appellate court informed appellants, for the first time, that the motion for relief and the January 23rd judgment were missing from the record. Three days thereafter, on May 11, 1979, appellants filed a motion, pursuant to App.R. 9(E) for an order directing correction of omissions from the record. Included therein was a copy of the motion for relief and the original of the January 23rd judgment. ¹ However, before ruling on the App.R. 9(E) motion, the Court of Appeals filed, on May 17, 1979, its journal entry and opinion. The appellate court found that "(a)s a result of the absence (from the record) of the actual motion for relief and of the ruling on that motion, appellants' arguments relating to that motion cannot be reviewed by this court." Therefore, the trial court order granting the motion for relief was affirmed. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals summarily overruled the motion to correct omissions and overruled appellants' motion for reconsideration.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Richard H. Woods, Cleveland, for appellee.

Thompson, Hine & Flory and Thomas J. Collin, Cleveland, for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

In refusing to review appellants' assignments of error, the Court of Appeals cited Ray v. Columbus (1956), 145 N.E.2d 482, 484, 76 Ohio Law Abs. 97, 99, for the proposition that "(t)he obligation is upon the appellant to exemplify any error assigned." While this is true as a general principle, it merely begs the question of whether, in this instance, appellants should suffer because of the apparent nonfeasance of the trial court clerk in failing to transmit pertinent elements of the record.

Resolution of this issue involves interpretation of the Appellate Rules. App.R. 10(A) provides, inter alia, that " * * * (a)fter filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 9(B) (relative to ordering a transcript of the proceedings) and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record." Appellee contends that this provision places an obligation upon appellants to supervise the actions of the trial court clerk to ensure that he transmits every portion of the record that the praecipe requests. We cannot accept such a strained interpretation, for it would render meaningless the duty imposed upon the clerk, by App.R. 10(B), to transmit the record to the Court of Appeals.

This court first confronted a similar problem in Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Ruthman (1911), 85 Ohio St. 62, 96 N.E. 1019. Therein, in paragraph one of the syllabus, we established "(t)he general rule that the law will not permit a party to suffer detriment by reason of the neglect or misconduct of an officer charged with a public duty where such party, in the prosecution of a right, has done everything that the law requires him to do, and fails to attain his right wholly by such neglect or misconduct * * *." During the following year, in Pace v. Volk (1912), 85 Ohio St. 413, 98 N.E. 111, we addressed the consequences of the failure of a clerk to timely transmit a bill of exceptions to the appellate court. This court concluded that as long as an appellant had complied with his obligation to properly file the bill with the clerk, he should not be denied effective review. ² Most recently, this court reached the same result in Welfare Finance Corp. v. Estep (1960), 170 Ohio St. 391, 392, 165 N.E.2d 789, 790, holding that "(t)he defendant in the instant case should not be precluded from having her appeal heard on the merits for failure of the clerk of courts to perform a ministerial act in connection with the bill of exceptions."

While the Appellate Rules have replaced the bill of exceptions with the transcript of proceedings, and further streamlined the procedure on appeal, the same principles apply. Appellants herein timely filed a notice of appeal and a praecipe requesting that the clerk of courts assemble and prepare the record (including a partial transcript under App.R. 9(B)) for transmission. In...