[Cite as Scanlon v. Scanlon, 2012-Ohio-2317.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97739

JOHN J. SCANLON, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS 

vs. 

PATTI C. SCANLON, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-659632 

BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., Sweeney, J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 24, 2012 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS

For John J. Scanlon and Neil J. O’Donnell, III

Ryan P. Nowlin 

David M. Lenz 

James D. Vail 

Schneider, Smeltz, Ranney & LaFond, P.L.L. 

1111 Superior Avenue 

Suite 1000 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

FOR APPELLEES

Attorneys for Patti C. Scanlon

Dennis R. Rose 

Dipali Parikh 

Hahn Loeser & Parks, L.L.P. 

200 Public Square 

Suite 2800 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

Attorney for Brian Scanlon

Fred W. Friend 

2619 Edgerton Road 

University Heights, Ohio 44118 

Colleen Adams, pro se 

4330 Peartree Lane, #1 

Hemet, California 92544 

Kevin Allen, pro se 

25 Martin 

Hanover Township, Pennsylvania 18706 

 -continuedToby Allen, pro se 

11923 Cyclops 
Norwalk, California 90650 

Tonya Allen, pro se 

260 Market Street 

Pittston Township, Pennsylvania 18640 

Carla Callahan, pro se 

3115 Stoney Ridge Road 

Avon, Ohio 44011 

Annette Hart, pro se 

11923 Cyclops 

Norwalk, California 90650 

Kathy Hoff, pro se 

5797 Overlook Way 

North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039 

Kerrie Japel, pro se 

3147 Stoney Ridge Road 

Avon, Ohio 44011 

Mary Cecile O’Donnell, pro se 

2391 Wagar Road 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

Neil O’Donnell, pro se 

2791 Wagar Road 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

Mary Pickett, pro se 

3132 Killingworth Lane 

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 

 -continuedCharles Scanlon, pro se 

11207 Peony Lane 

Cleveland, Ohio 44111 

Michael Scanlon, pro se 

1505 McLean Corner Lane 

McLean, Virginia 22101 

Michael Scanlon, pro se 

11207 Peony Avenue 
Cleveland, Ohio 44111 

Michael Scanlon, pro se 

14613 Orchard Park 

Cleveland, Ohio 44111 

Patrick Daniel Scanlon, pro se 

122 Stanley Place 

LaPlace, Louisiana 70068 

Patrick Scanlon, pro se 

2361 Hidden Lake Drive 

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 

Daniel Thompson, pro se 

127 Cobblestone Way 

Novato, California 94945 

Delgar Patrick Thompson, pro se 

23500 Peartree Lane 

Hemet, California 92544 

Timothy Thompson, pro se 

631 A. So. Glassell 

Orange, California 92865 

Mary Kathleen Wilcox, pro se 

3 Coventry Drive 

Haines City, Florida 33844 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.: 

{¶1} Appellants, several remainder beneficiaries of the Thomas P. Scanlon Family 

Trust, bring the instant appeal following a grant of summary judgment in favor of Patti 

Scanlon, executor of the estate of Gertrude Scanlon. The remainder beneficiaries filed 

suit seeking the return of trust assets they alleged were wrongfully removed. This court, 

however, is without jurisdiction to decide the matter because there is no final, appealable 

order in this case. 

{¶2} Thomas P. Scanlon established a pour-over trust, which would receive 

substantial assets at his death. The trust was named the Thomas P. Scanlon Family Trust 

and was established on October 25, 1990. Thomas P. Scanlon died on February 19, 

2005, and his wife, Gertrude Scanlon, became trustee and sole present-interest 

beneficiary. The trust also named several remainder beneficiaries and specified a 

percentage of the trust assets they should receive upon Gertrude’s death. These 

beneficiaries included Michael T. Scanlon, John J. Scanlon, Cecile O’Donnell, other 

relatives of Thomas P. Scanlon, a number of children of these individuals, and Gertrude’s 

son from a previous relationship. 

{¶3} Gertrude had withdrawn the entire trust principal by the time of her death on 

September 25, 2007, and the assets formerly held by the trust were divided as specified by 

her estate documents. 

{¶4} Upon discovering that the trust was empty, John J. Scanlon and Cecile 

O’Donnell filed suit on May 15, 2008, requesting the return of trust assets from 

Gertrude’s estate and for an accounting. Patti Scanlon, Gertrude’s executrix, filed an 
answer and motion for summary judgment. Following the submission of dispositive 

motions, Patrick Scanlon, the son of now-deceased Michael T. Scanlon, sought leave to 

file a cross-claim against Patti as executrix. The trial court granted leave, and Patrick’s 

cross-claim was accepted. 

{¶5} Patti did not respond to Patrick’s cross-claim in a timely manner and filed a 

late answer with a request for leave to file an answer. This request for leave was granted 

on the same day the court granted her motion for summary judgment. After giving 

reasons for its decision, the trial court’s journal entry states “Defendant Patti C. 

Scanlon’s, as executrix of the estate of Gertrude I. Scanlon, deceased, motion for 

summary judgment granted.” 

{¶6} This court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing final, appealable orders. 

Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. 

A final order “is one disposing of the whole case or some separate and 

distinct branch thereof.” Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 

303, 306, 272 N.E.2d 127 (1971). A trial court’s order is final and 

appealable only if it satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if 

applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). Braelinn Green Condominium Unit Owner’s 

Assn. v. Italia Homes, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1144, 2010-Ohio-2371, ¶ 

7, citing Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594, 596, 716 N.E.2d 184 

(1999). 

Relevant here, Civ.R. 54(B) provides that 

[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a 

claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising 

out of the same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties are 

involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer 

than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that 

there is no just reason for delay. 

{¶7} The journal entry disposing of this case does not address Patrick’s 

cross-claim. No motion for summary judgment was pending on Patrick’s cross-claim 
because it was filed after Patti’s motion for summary judgment was submitted. 

Therefore, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment cannot be construed to 

apply to Patrick’s cross-claim. 

{¶8} The order appealed does not dispose of all claims in the case or otherwise 

note why there should be no just reason for delay. Therefore, this court lacks a final, 

appealable order from which jurisdiction flows. Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Const. 

Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186, 280 N.E.2d 922 (1972). 

{¶9} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants costs herein taxed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR