[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 Count y Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting Melva and Scott Sherw ood’s motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B). James Barilla also appeals fr om the same judgment, and this

Court has consolidated those a ppeals. This Court vacates the t rial court’s judgment, and remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decisio n.

I. {¶2} This case has a long and complicated procedural history, much o f which is not relevant to this Court’s dispos ition of this appeal. Relevantl y, in a prior consolidated appeal of three separate judgments, this Court stayed the appeal and rema nded the matter for the trial court

to rule on the Sherwoods’ motion f or 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 pa rties filed two additional app eals: C.A. No. 18CA011325 and2

C.A. No. 18CA011286. Shortly thereafter, the trial court issue d 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 assignme nts of error. This Court will address some of the assignments of error together, and out of o rder.

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 co urt’s jurisdiction to rule on the Sherwoods’ motion for relief from judgment. Ms. Eb erhardt’s third and fourth assignments of error likewise challenge the trial court’s juris diction to rule on the Sherwoods’ motion, as well as this Court’s jurisdiction to issue a decisio n on appeal. {¶4} As previously noted, this Court stayed a consolidated appeal a nd remanded the

matter for the trial court to r ule 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. N o. 18CA011325 and C.A. No. 18CA011286 . Shortly thereafter, the trial court issued its judgment e ntry granting the Sherwoods’ m otion for relief from judgment on3

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 d ismissed C.A. No. 18CA011325 for lack of a final, a ppealable order. Several mont hs after that, this Court dismissed C.A. No. 18CA011333. Most recently, this Court issue d its decision in C.A. No.

18CA011286. {¶5} Once a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdicti on to take action that is inconsistent with the jurisdi ction 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 f inal and appealable. See id . at ¶ 10. In light of the matters pending before this Court when the tria l court issued its June 8, 2018, judgment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter that jud gment. 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 jurisdic tion 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 likew ise 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 dispos ition of the previous assignment s of error, the remaining assignments of error ar e moot, and are overruled on t hat basis. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

III. {¶7} Mr. Barilla’s third assignment of error is sustained. Ms. Eber hardt’s third and fourth assignments of error are s ustained. The remaining assig nments of error are overruled as moot. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is

vacated. This matter is remande d for further proceedings consi stent 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, direc ting 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 constitu te the mandate, pursuant to Ap p.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t 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 pa rties 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, Attorn ey at Law, for Appellant. JAMES V. BARILLA, Attorney at Law, pro se, Appellant. BRENT ENGLISH, Attorney a t Law, for Appellees.