Twinsburg Banking Co. v. RHEA Const. Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 30 March 1983 |
Citation | 9 Ohio App.3d 39,9 OBR 41,458 N.E.2d 440 |
Parties | , 9 O.B.R. 41 TWINSBURG BANKING COMPANY, Appellee, v. RHEA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
It is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to overrule a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment without first holding an evidentiary hearing where the motion and affidavits contain allegations of operative facts which would warrant relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
R. Andrew Richner, Twinsburg, for appellee.
Jerome M. Dachman, Cleveland, for appellants Joseph A. Rhea and Rhea Construction Co., Inc.
Bruce L. Meizlish, Cincinnati, for appellant Joseph R. Latina.
Appellants, Rhea Construction Company, Inc., Joseph Rhea, and Joseph Latina appeal the trial court's decision in overruling their Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a cognovit judgment. This decision is reversed and the cause is remanded.
In October 1981, appellants defaulted on two cognovit notes held by appellee, the Twinsburg Banking Company. On June 8, 1982, appellee took judgment by the use of the warrant of attorney to confess judgment in the notes. On July 23, 1982, appellants moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(3). Both the appellants and appellee filed briefs and affidavits. On September 14, 1982, the trial court denied the motion for relief from judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Appellants essentially assert the following assignments of error:
The threshold issue is whether appellants were entitled to a hearing on their motion to vacate the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). In determining whether the court abused its discretion in denying a hearing, this court must apply the facts of this case to the standard established in Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97, at 105, 316 N.E.2d 469 :
Civ.R. 60(B)(3) permits relief from a judgment obtained by fraud. Appellants' brief and supporting affidavit alleged operative facts to establish fraud in the execution of the note. However, these facts were contradicted by appellee's brief and supporting affidavit. The trial court had before it competing affidavits and these appeared equally persuasive on their face.
A finding in favor of appellee cannot be based solely on weighing the conflicting affidavits presented here. An evidentiary hearing must be held to allow appellants the opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney
...Civ.R. 60(B). In re Shell (Oct. 2, 1992), Fairfield App. No. 12-CA-92, unreported, 1992 WL 307869; Twinsburg Banking Co. v. RHEA Constr. Co. (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 39, 9 OBR 41, 458 N.E.2d 440. In its first assignment of error, SOCC argues that Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to defeat a consent......
-
Gurkovich v. AAA Mobile Home Sales & Brokerage, Inc.
...materials submitted. Hornyak v. Brooks (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 105, 16 OBR 111, 474 N.E.2d 676; cf. Twinsburg Banking Co. v. RHEA Constr. Co. (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 39, 9 OBR 41, 458 N.E.2d 440; U.A.P. Columbus JV326132 v. Plum (1986), 27 Ohio App.3d 293, 27 OBR 338, 500 N.E.2d The thrust of ......
-
Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Paul Kidney, Chief, Division of Mines, Et. Al.
... ... 498, 506; Wilmington Steel Products, Inc. v. Cleve. Elec ... Illum. Co ... (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d ... No ... 12-CA-92, unreported, citing Twinsburg Banking Co. v ... RHEA Constr. Co ... (1983), 9 Ohio ... ...
-
Emery Hill v. Aleithra Briggs
... ... intervening defendant, Allstate Insurance Co ... Crabbe, ... Brown, ... Products, Inc. v. Cleve. Elec. Illum. Co. (1991), 60 ... 12-CA-92, unreported, citing ... Twinsburg Banking Co. v. RHEA Constr. Co. (1983), 9 ... ...