Title: State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 2008-Ohio-1444.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SAUTTER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. GREY,  
JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 2008-Ohio-1444.] 
Appellate procedure—Time for appeal when notice of appealable judgment 
lacking—Civ.R. 58—Tolling provision of App.R. 4(A) inapplicable to 
appeals from courts of appeals to Supreme Court—Court of appeals must 
reissue judgment. 
(No. 2007-1720 ─ Submitted March 26, 2008 ─ Decided April 2, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Morrow County, 
 No. 06-CA-6, 2007-Ohio-1831. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals that 
vacated its earlier judgment dismissing an original action in mandamus and 
prohibition.  The court of appeals held that because the clerk of courts had not 
timely served notice of the original judgment on the parties, the time for filing a 
notice of appeal with this court began to run on the date that the clerk belatedly 
served the notice.  Because the court of appeals’ holding in effect denied 
appellants their right to appeal the judgment in the writ case, we reverse. 
{¶ 2} Appellants, Roland Sautter and Edward Sickmiller, are taxpayers 
and residents of Morrow County.  Appellants filed an action in the Court of 
Appeals for Morrow County for writs of mandamus and prohibition (1) to compel 
appellee Judge Lawrence Grey of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, to 
vacate a declaratory judgment in favor of appellees Cⅅ Acquisitions, Ltd. and 
its subsidiaries, Harmony Environmental, Ltd. and Washington Environmental, 
Ltd., (2) to prohibit Judge Grey from modifying, reaffirming, or ratifying the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
declaratory judgment, and (3) to compel appellees Morrow County zoning 
officials to enforce the existing zoning laws as if the declaratory judgment were a 
nullity. 
{¶ 3} On April 18, 2007, the court of appeals entered a judgment 
granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and dismissing appellants’ writ 
action.  On that date, the Morrow County clerk of courts received the judgment 
entry and opinion in the case, but as a result of an oversight by the clerk’s office, 
the clerk did not deliver notice of the judgment to the parties and failed to note 
receipt of the judgment entry and opinion in the appearance docket. 
{¶ 4} Appellants’ counsel was notified by opposing counsel on June 12 
of the court of appeals’ judgment in the writ case.  Appellants’ counsel then 
contacted the clerk’s office and was told that the office was unaware that the court 
of appeals had issued a judgment and opinion.  The clerk delivered a copy of the 
April 18 judgment and opinion to the parties’ counsel on June 18 and noted the 
delivery on the appearance docket. 
{¶ 5} Appellants’ counsel attempted to file a notice of appeal from the 
court of appeals’ judgment with this court on June 29, but the clerk of this court 
rejected the notice of appeal as untimely. 
{¶ 6} Appellants filed a motion in the court of appeals to vacate and 
reissue the court’s April 18 judgment entry and opinion to enable appellants to 
perfect an appeal from that judgment to this court.  Appellants attached an 
affidavit of one of their attorneys as well as an affidavit of the Morrow County 
clerk of courts.  The clerk admitted that her office had “neglected to properly and 
timely notify all counsel of record in the [State ex rel.] Sautter [v. Grey, 2007-
Ohio-1831, 2007 WL 1151878] action of the [April 18, 2007] Judgment Entry and 
Opinion issued by the Fifth District Court of Appeals” and further acknowledged 
that “the filing of the Judgment Entry and Opinion were not entered in the 
January Term, 2008 
3 
appearance docket until June 18, 2007.”  Appellees did not file a response to 
appellants’ motion. 
{¶ 7} On August 13, the court of appeals granted appellants’ motion in 
part by vacating its April 18 opinion and judgment entry.  Nevertheless, the court 
of appeals refused to reissue its opinion and judgment entry and instead ordered 
that “the service date of the opinion on June 18, 2007 began the time for filing a 
Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court.” 
{¶ 8} In their appeal as of right, appellants assert that the court of 
appeals erred in failing to reissue its April 18 judgment entry and opinion and 
instead ordering that the clerk’s June 18 service of the entry and opinion on the 
parties began the time for filing a notice of appeal to this court.  We agree and 
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 9} “[F]ailure to give reasonable notice of final appealable orders is a 
denial of the right to legal redress of injuries created by Section 16, Article I of 
the Ohio Constitution.”  Moldovan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Welfare Dept. (1986), 25 
Ohio St.3d 293, 296, 25 OBR 343, 496 N.E.2d 466.  “The opportunity to file a 
timely appeal * * * is rendered meaningless when reasonable notice of an 
appealable order is not given.”  Id. at 295.  “[F]or due process purposes litigants 
are entitled to reasonable notice of the trial court’s appealable orders.”  Atkinson 
v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 85, 523 N.E.2d 851. 
{¶ 10} “Moldovan and Atkinson stand for the proposition that if a right of 
appeal from a trial court’s judgment is to have meaning, the parties to the 
judgment or their attorneys of record must be given notice of the judgment before 
the time for appeal begins to run.”  Swander Ditch Landowners’ Assn. v. Joint Bd. 
of Huron & Seneca Cty. Commrs. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 554 N.E.2d 
1324. 
{¶ 11} The Rules of Civil Procedure are generally applicable in original 
actions for extraordinary writs.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 99 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
St.3d 212, 2003-Ohio-3080, 790 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 5, fn. 1 (“Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) is not 
clearly inapplicable to Ahmed’s prohibition and mandamus claims”); Gaskins v. 
Shiplevy (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (“The Civil Rules may 
apply to habeas corpus cases where not ‘clearly inapplicable’ by their nature”). 
{¶ 12} Civ.R. 58, which is not clearly inapplicable to original actions filed 
in courts of appeals, provides the following procedure for serving notice of a 
judgment on the parties: 
{¶ 13} “When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereon 
a direction to the clerk to serve upon all parties not in default for failure to appear 
notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.  Within three days of 
entering the judgment upon the journal, the clerk shall serve the parties in a 
manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B) and note the service in the appearance docket.  
Upon serving the notice and notation of the service in the appearance docket, the 
service is complete.  The failure of the clerk to serve notice does not affect the 
validity of the judgment or the running of the time for appeal except as provided 
in App.R. 4(A).”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 14} App.R. 4(A) provides: 
{¶ 15} “A party shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 
thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order appealed or, in a civil 
case, service of the notice of judgment and its entry if service is not made on the 
party within the three day period in Rule 58(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil 
Procedure.” 
{¶ 16} In those cases in which both Civ.R. 58(B) and App.R. 4(A) are 
applicable, if service of the notice of judgment and its entry is made within the 
three-day period of Civ.R. 58(B), the appeal period begins on the date of 
judgment, but if the appellants are not served with timely notice, the appeal period 
is tolled until the appellants have been served.  In re Anderson (2001), 92 Ohio 
St.3d 63, 67, 748 N.E.2d 67.  Consequently, App.R. 4(A) “tolls the time period 
January Term, 2008 
5 
for filing a notice of appeal * * * if service is not made within the three-day 
period of Civ.R. 58(B).”  State ex rel. Hughes v. Celeste (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 
429, 431, 619 N.E.2d 412. 
{¶ 17} The evidence is uncontroverted here that the clerk of the court of 
appeals failed to serve notice of the April 18 judgment entry and opinion and the 
date of its journal entry upon the parties in accordance with Civ.R. 58(B).  Cf. 
Loc.App.R. 11(A) of the Fifth District Court of Appeals (“immediately upon the 
entry of an order or judgment of this Court, the Clerk of this Court shall deliver a 
copy of the order or judgment and a copy of any accompanying memorandum-
opinion to all counsel and to any party not represented by counsel and shall make 
a note of the delivery in the appearance docket of the Court of Appeals”).  
Therefore, the court of appeals correctly vacated its April 18 judgment.  The court 
of appeals then apparently applied App.R. 4(A) by ruling that because appellants 
were served with the April 18 judgment entry and opinion on June 18, their time 
to appeal that judgment to this court began to run on June 18. 
{¶ 18} The court of appeals erred in so holding.  App.R. 4(A) does not 
apply to appeals to this court from courts of appeals.  See App.R. 1(A) (“These 
rules govern procedure in appeals to courts of appeals from the trial courts of 
record in Ohio”); see also Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608, 653 
N.E.2d 659 (based on App.R. 1(A), “App.R. 13(D) could not have been 
applicable to this original action in the court of appeals”). 
{¶ 19} Instead, the Supreme Court Rules of Practice govern appeals from 
courts of appeals to this court.  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1) provides the following 
with respect to perfecting an appeal from a court of appeals to the Supreme Court: 
{¶ 20} “(a) To perfect an appeal from a court of appeals to the Supreme 
Court, * * * the appellant shall file a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court within 
45 days from the entry of the judgment being appealed.  The date the court of 
appeals filed its judgment entry for journalization with its clerk, in accordance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
with App.R. 22(E), shall be considered the date of entry of the judgment being 
appealed.  * * * 
{¶ 21} “(b) * * * [T]he time period designated in this rule for filing a 
notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction is mandatory, and the 
appellant’s failure to file within this time period shall divest the Supreme Court of 
jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall refuse to file 
a notice of appeal or a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that is tendered for 
filing after this time period has passed.” 
{¶ 22} This rule does not provide a tolling provision similar to that in 
App.R. 4(A) based on the date that the parties are served with notice of the court 
of appeals’ judgment.  When appellants attempted to file their notice of appeal 
from the April 18 judgment within 45 days of when they were served with notice 
of the judgment by the clerk of the court of appeals, the clerk of the Supreme 
Court correctly refused to file it based on S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1)(b) because it 
was not filed within 45 days of the April 18 entry of judgment. 
{¶ 23} Therefore, given the inapplicability of App.R. 4(A) and the 
absence of a comparable provision in this court’s Rules of Practice, the court of 
appeals erred in refusing to reissue its April 18 judgment and in failing to permit 
appellants to appeal the reissued judgment.  By holding in its August 13 judgment 
that appellants had 45 days from the June 18 service of the April 18 judgment on 
them to perfect their appeal to this court, the court of appeals in effect denied 
appellants their right to appeal.  By August 13, the appeal period had already 
expired.  Requiring the court of appeals to reissue its April 18 judgment with the 
notice prescribed by Civ.R. 58(B) will afford appellants their constitutional right 
to reasonable notice of the judgment before the time to appeal begins to run.  
Moldovan, Atkinson, and Swander Ditch. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
{¶ 24} Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and remand the cause to that court to reissue its April 18 judgment with 
the appropriate service of notice. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., and Curtis E. Kissinger, for 
appellants. 
 
Rayle, Matthews & Coon and Max E. Rayle, for appellees Cⅅ 
Acquisitions, 
Ltd., 
Washington 
Environmental, 
Ltd., 
and 
Harmony 
Environmental, Ltd. 
______________________