[Cite as Miller v. Mellot, 2020-Ohio-237.]

Atty. Kristopher Justice, and Atty. Daniel Corcoran, Theisen Brock, 424 Second Street, 

Marietta, Ohio 45750, for Plaintiffs- Appellants and 

Atty. Scott Eickelberger, Atty. David Tarbert, and Atty. Ryan Linn, Kincaid, Taylor, & 

Geyer, 50 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 1030, Zanesville, Ohio 43702, for DefendantsAppellees. 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MONROE COUNTY

ALLEN B. MILLER ET AL., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

ELBERT MELLOTT ET AL., 

Defendants-Appellees.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 18 MO 0004 

 

Motion for Reconsideration 

BEFORE: 

David A. D’Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Denied. 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 18 MO 0004

Dated: January 24, 2020 

 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} On October 9, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Allen B. Miller, Matilda J. Miller, 

Craig M. Miller, Tina E. Miller, Brenda D. Thomas, and Kevin M. Thomas filed a second 

application for reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A)(1). On September 30, 2019, we 

granted Appellant’s original application for reconsideration in order to clarify our opinion 

and judgment entry issued on February 6, 2019, Miller v. Mellott, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 

18MO0004, 2019-Ohio-504, 130 N.E.3d 1021, but ultimately affirmed the trial court’s 

dismissal of Appellants’ Marketable Title Act (“MTA”) claim. Miller v. Mellott, 7th Dist. 

Monroe No. 18MO0004, 2019-Ohio-4084. Defendants-Appellees, Betty Mellott, Mary Hill, 

Paul Hill, Kathie Hill, Marcia Phelps, Debe Owens, Lawrence Hill, Patricia Hill, Terrence 

Hill, Jody Hill, and Patricia Herndon, filed their opposition brief to the second application 

on October 17, 2019. Appellants’ reply was filed on October 23, 2019. 

{¶2} An application for reconsideration must call to the attention of the appellate 

court an obvious error in its decision or point to an issue that was raised to the court but 

was inadvertently either not considered at all or not fully considered. Juhasz v. Costanzo, 

7th Dist. Mahoning No. 99-C.A.-294, 2002 WL 206417, (Feb. 1, 2002). In our September 

30th judgment entry, we explained that the void in the post-severance/pre-root deed 

history in the record prohibited us from concluding that an exception in the root of title 

deed was a general reference to an interest created in a prior deed. 

{¶3} We have previous recognized that App.R. 26(A) does not provide for 

second or successive reconsiderations of our final judgment in an appeal. State v. 

Wellington, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 115, 2015-Ohio-2754, ¶ 6; State v. Dew, 7th 

Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 6; State v. Davis, 7th Dist. Mahoning 

No. 10 MA160 (Jan. 12, 2012 J.E.). The Ohio Supreme Court reached the same 

conclusion with respect to successive applications to reopen under App.R. 26(B). State 

v. Peeples, 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 1995-Ohio-36, 652 N.E.2d 717 (1995). Accordingly, 

Appellants’ second application for reconsideration is denied. 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 18 MO 0004

 

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO 

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE 

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB 

 

 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.