[Cite as Summitcrest, Inc. v. Eric Petroleum Corp., 2016-Ohio-3381.]

STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

SUMMITCREST, INC. 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

 CROSS-APPELLANT 

VS. 

ERIC PETROLEUM CORP., ET AL. 

 DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS 

 CROSS-APPELLEE 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 12 CO 0055 

OPINION 

AND 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration 

JUDGMENT: Denied. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Attorney Bruce Khula 

Attorney Steven Friedman 

4900 Key Tower 

127 Public Square 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1304 

For Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee 

Eric Petroleum Corporation 

For Defendants-Appellants 

Chesapeake Exploration, LLC and 

Ohio Buckeye Energy, LLC 

Attorney Thomas Hill 

6075 Silica Road, Suite A 

Austintown, Ohio 44515-1053 

Attorney Thomas Fusonie 

52 East Gay Street 

P.O. Box 1008 

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

 

 

 Dated: June 13, 2016 

 
- 2 - 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} On March 17, 2016, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Summitcrest, Inc. filed an 

application for reconsideration in the appeal of Summitcrest, Inc., v. Eric Petroleum 

Corp., 7th Dist. 12 CO 0055, 2016-Ohio-888. 

{¶2} "The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration 

in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an 

obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not 

considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been." 

Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (1987), paragraph one of the 

syllabus. 

{¶3} The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue one's appeal based on 

dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an appellate court. 

Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. No. 04 MA 0245, 2005–

Ohio–3828, ¶ 2. "An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the 

basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision." Hampton v. 

Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 0066, 2005–Ohio–1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted). 

Nor is it "a mechanism to raise an entirely new argument and issue to the appellate 

court that was not raised in the appellate brief." State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. No. 14 

MA 0115, 2015-Ohio-2095, ¶9. 

{¶4} App.R. 26(A)(1) mandates that applications for reconsideration shall 

be "made in writing no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties 

the judgment or order in question and made a note on the docket of the mailing." 

App.R. 26(A)(1). The three-day mail rule in App.R. 14(C) is inapplicable to applications 

for reconsideration. Peters v. Tipton, 7th Dist. No. 13 HA 10, 2015-Ohio-3307, ¶ 9. 

{¶5} "A motion for reconsideration can be entertained even though it was 

filed beyond the ten-day limitation provided for by the rule if the motion raises an issue 

of sufficient importance to warrant entertaining it beyond the ten-day limit." State v. 

Dew, 7th Dist. No. 08MA62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 7. 

{¶6} This Court issued its judgment entry and opinion in Summitcrest's appeal 

on March 4, 2016; that same day, the clerk mailed the judgment to the parties and 
- 3 - 

made a note on the docket accordingly. Summitcrest filed its application for 

reconsideration on March 17, 2016, three days late. It did not acknowledge this tardy 

filing nor provide an explanation of good cause. More importantly, there does not 

appear to be, nor does Summitcrest allege, an issue of sufficient importance to 

warrant entertaining the application beyond the ten-day limit. 

{¶7} Rather, it appears that Summitcrest merely disagrees with this Court's 

decision. Briefly stated, this Court was mindful of the procedural posture of this case, 

an issue Summitcrest raises for the first time upon reconsideration, and did not "sua 

sponte" enter summary judgment in favor of EPC, as Summitcrest asserts. Rather, we 

concluded that, as a matter of law, the trial court erred in its interpretation of the 

contract, stated the correct interpretation, and accordingly reversed and remanded the 

matter to the trial court, Summitcrest at ¶ 4, as EPC's counterclaims remain pending 

before the trial court for resolution. Summitcrest at ¶ 19. 

{¶8} Because Summitcrest has failed to meet the requisite time frame for 

reconsideration, and has failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing, nor 

raised a sufficient issue warranting consideration of its motion beyond the time limit set 

by the Appellate Rules, the merits of its application cannot be addressed and the 

application is hereby denied. 

DeGenaro, J., concurs. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

Waite, J., concurs.