[Cite as In re Estate of Sassya , 2024
- Ohio
- 1347.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE OF HANNA SASSYA a.k.a. HANNA LEBY HANNA BOULOS SASSYA, DECEASED CASE NO. 2024 - T - 0017
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division

Trial Court No. 2022 EST 0180

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Decided: April 9, 2024 Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Carol Lyn n e Morgan , pro se, 878 Indianola Road, Boardman, OH 44512, and Leby Sassya , pro se, 1463 Stanley Street, S.E., Girard, OH 44420 (Appellants)

. Paul B. Ricard

, Pelin i , Campbell & Ricard, LLC, Bretton Commons, Suite 400, 8040 Cleveland Avenue, N.W., North Canton, OH 44720 ( For Appellee , Protective Life Insurance Company )

.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J. {¶1} An appeal was filed on February 9, 2024. In February of 2022, an application for authority to administer the estate of Hanna Sassya (“the Estate”) was filed in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. A motion to compel, appellee, Protective Life Insurance Company, to release the annuity funds to the E state was filed. On October 18, 2023, the m agistrate issued a r eport and d ecision denying the motion to compel

. On the same date, t he trial court i ssued a judgment entr y den ying the motion to compel appellee to release the annuity funds to the Estate. Objections to the2

Case No. 2024

- T

- 0017 Magistrate’s Report and Decision were filed , and o n December 1, 2023 , the trial court denied the objections. A ppellants filed a motion requesting the trial court to reconsider its December 1, 2023 entry . In a January 9, 2024 judgment entry, the trial court deni ed the motion for reconsideration

. {¶2} The notice of appeal indicates that the October 18, 2023, December 1, 2023, and January 9, 2024 judgment entries are being appealed. The October 18, 2023 entry issued by the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and d enied the motion to compel appellee to release funds to the Estate. No timely appeal was filed from that entry

. The parties filed objections, which were denied in the December 1, 2023 entry . No timely appeal was taken from that entry either. Instead, a request for reconsideration w as filed on December 18, 2023

. {¶3} A motion for reconsideration is not recognized under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus , any judgment on this type of motion is a nullity and cannot be appealed. Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 381 (1981); see also Andolsek v. Polstein , 11th Dist. Lake No. 20 18

- L

- 054 , 201 8

- Ohio

- 3 626 , at ¶ 3 . Th erefore , the trial court’s January 9 , 20 24 judgment entry denying the motion for reconsideration is a nullity and cannot be reviewed on appeal. {¶4} Further, the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing an appeal from a final judgment. Pitts at 380. An appeal from the December 1 , 20 23 entry d enying the objections to the magistrate’s decision appears to be the only final appealable order on the trial court docket. {¶5} App.R. 3(A) expressly states that the only jurisdictional requirement for filing a valid appeal is to file it within the time allowed by App.R. 4. The Supreme Court has3

Case No. 2024

- T

- 0017 held that the failure to comply with the time requirements of App.R. 4(A) is a jurisdictional defect, which is fatal to an appeal. In re H.F. , 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008

- Ohio

- 6810, ¶ 17, citing State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections , 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988). {¶6} “Subject to the provisions of App.R. 4(A)(3), a party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” See App.R. 4(A)(1). Civ.R. 58(B) directs the clerk of courts to serve the parties with notice of the entry within three days of entering the judgment upon the journal. If Civ.R. 58(B ) service does not occur within three days, the time to appeal does not begin to run until service is made and noted in the a ppearance docket. Coles v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. , 163 Ohio App.3d 659, 664, 2005

- Ohio

- 5360. {¶7} In this case , the trial court issued its entry on December 1, 2023

. The clerk of courts noted on the appearance docket that notice of the entry under Civ.R. 58(B) was issued to the parties on that same date. Therefore, pursuant Civ.R. 58(B), the time to appeal began to run from December 1, 2023. The deadline for the filing of the notice of appeal was January 2, 2024, which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, the February 9, 2024 notice of appeal was untimely filed by 38 days. {¶8} This court is not empowered to extend the time deadline in civil cases. Pendell , supra at 60; see also App.R. 14(B). {¶9} Based upon the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order and untimeliness.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J. , MATT LYNCH, J. ,
concur

.