[Cite as Sherwood v. Eberhardt, 2019-Ohio-4623.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

MELVA SHERWOOD, et al. 

 Appellees 

 v. 

LINDSEY EBERHARDT 

 Appellant 

C.A. Nos. 18CA011350 

18CA011351 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 10JG30837 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: November 12, 2019 

 

HENSAL, Judge. 

{¶1} Lindsey Eberhardt appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting Melva and Scott Sherwood’s motion for relief from 

judgment under Civil Rule 60(B). James Barilla also appeals from the same judgment, and this 

Court has consolidated those appeals. This Court vacates the trial court’s judgment, and remands 

the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

I. 

{¶2} This case has a long and complicated procedural history, much of which is not 

relevant to this Court’s disposition of this appeal. Relevantly, in a prior consolidated appeal of 

three separate judgments, this Court stayed the appeal and remanded the matter for the trial court 

to rule on the Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(B). See In re C.W., 9th 

Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA011044, 17CA011162, 17CA011165, 2018-Ohio-5265, ¶ 18-19. While 

that appeal was on remand, the parties filed two additional appeals: C.A. No. 18CA011325 and 
2 

 

C.A. No. 18CA011286. Shortly thereafter, the trial court issued its judgment entry granting the 

Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment on June 8, 2018. Ms. Eberhardt and Mr. Barilla 

now appeal from that judgment, raising a total of nine assignments of error. This Court will 

address some of the assignments of error together, and out of order. 

II. 

MR. BARILLA’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT RENDERED ITS JUNE 8, 2018 

DECISION BECAUSE THE PENDING APPEALS AND PENDING PETITION 

FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIVESTED IT OF JURISDICTION. 

MS. EBERHARDT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT DISMISS THE 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THIS 

COURT. 

MS. EBERHARDT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT RENDERED ITS JUNE 8, 2018 

DECISION BECAUSE THE PENDING APPEALS AND PENDING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIVESTED IT OF JURISDICTION. 

{¶3} Mr. Barilla’s third assignment of error challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction to 

rule on the Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment. Ms. Eberhardt’s third and fourth 

assignments of error likewise challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on the Sherwoods’ 

motion, as well as this Court’s jurisdiction to issue a decision on appeal. 

{¶4} As previously noted, this Court stayed a consolidated appeal and remanded the 

matter for the trial court to rule on the Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment under Rule 

60(B). See id. at ¶ 18-19. While that consolidated appeal was on remand, the parties filed two 

additional appeals: C.A. No. 18CA011325 and C.A. No. 18CA011286. Shortly thereafter, the 

trial court issued its judgment entry granting the Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment on 
3 

 

June 8, 2018. That same day, Mr. Barilla filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this Court 

in C.A. No. 18CA011333. About three months later, this Court dismissed C.A. No. 

18CA011325 for lack of a final, appealable order. Several months after that, this Court 

dismissed C.A. No. 18CA011333. Most recently, this Court issued its decision in C.A. No. 

18CA011286. 

{¶5} Once a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction to take action that 

is inconsistent with the jurisdiction of the appellate court. In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-

Ohio-3215, ¶ 9. This is so even if the order appealed is not final and appealable. See id. at ¶ 10. 

In light of the matters pending before this Court when the trial court issued its June 8, 2018, 

judgment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter that judgment. Accordingly, the June 8, 

2018, judgment is void. Freeland v. Pfeiffer, 87 Ohio App.3d 55, 58 (9th Dist.1993) (“It is well 

settled that a judgment rendered by a court that lacks jurisdiction is void ab initio.”). Mr. 

Barilla’s third assignment of error is sustained on that basis. Ms. Eberhardt’s third and fourth 

assignments of error are likewise sustained on that basis. 

MR. BARILLA’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SUSTAINED 

THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WHEN THE MOVANT 

FAILED TO PRESENT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR 

ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. 

MR. BARILLA’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SUSTAINED 

THE 60(B) MOTION AND GRANTED RELIEF WITHOUT HOLDING A 

HEARING OR TAKING EVIDENCE. 

MR. BARILLA’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED DISCOVERY, 

IMPOSED SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS DISCOVERY ORDERS, 
4 

 

AND DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE PROPRIETY OF THE 

DISCOVERY “ORDERS.” 

MS. EBERHARDT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DISMISS AND IN 

SUSTAINING THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT BECAUSE 

THE MOTION AND PROOF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE OHIO CIV.R. 

60(B) ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH FRAUD. 

MS. EBERHARDT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT 

SUSTAINED THE 60(B) MOTION AND GRANTED RELIEF WITHOUT 

HOLDING A HEARING OR TAKING EVIDENCE. 

MS. EBERHARDT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V 

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED DISCOVERY, 

IMPOSED SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS DISCOVERY ORDERS, 

AND WHEN IT DENIED EBERHARDT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST 

THE PROPRIETY OF THE DISCOVERY “ORDERS.” 

{¶6} In light of this Court’s disposition of the previous assignments of error, the 

remaining assignments of error are moot, and are overruled on that basis. See App.R. 

12(A)(1)(c). 

III. 

{¶7} Mr. Barilla’s third assignment of error is sustained. Ms. Eberhardt’s third and 

fourth assignments of error are sustained. The remaining assignments of error are overruled as 

moot. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is 

vacated. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

Judgment vacated, 

and cause remanded. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
5 

 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of 

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellees. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

TEODOSIO, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

JONATHAN E. ROSENBAUM, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

JAMES V. BARILLA, Attorney at Law, pro se, Appellant. 

BRENT ENGLISH, Attorney at Law, for Appellees.