[Cite as Weaver v. Pillar, 2012-Ohio-33.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BRIAN WEAVER, et al. 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants 

-vsMILES PILLAR 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2010 CT 02 0247 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 4, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiffs-Appellants For Defendant-Appellee 

DAN GUINN THOMAS HARDIN 

118 West High Avenue 134 Second Street, NW 

New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Plaintiffs-Appellants Brian Weaver and Jennifer Paisley appeal the 

February 28, 2011, decision of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas 

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Miles Pillar.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} The docket in this case reflects the following procedural history: 

{¶3} On February 23, 2010, Appellants Complaint was filed in this matter 

{¶4} On March 6, 2010, Appellee filed an Answer. 

{¶5} On February 11, 2011, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, 

with proof of service to Attorney Dan Guinn sent on February 10, 2011. No response 

was filed to the summary judgment motion. 

{¶6} On February 28, 2011, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry granting 

Defendant-Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. 

{¶7} Plaintiffs-Appellants now appeal, raising the following assignment of error: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FINDING 

THAT THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE 

GRANTED WHEN THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RECEIVE PROPER NOTICE OF THE 

FILING OF THE MOTION.” 

I. 

{¶9} In their sole assignment of error, Appellants argue that the trial court erred 

in granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Appellants argue that 

they never received proper notice of the filing of the motion. We disagree.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 3

{¶10} Appellants admit that a copy of Appellee’s motion for summary judgment 

was served upon and received by Appellants’ counsel but argue that such copy was not 

time-stamped and was therefore not proper.

{¶11} Appellants cite no authority for this proposition and this Court is aware of 

no rule which requires opposing counsel to serve time-stamped copies of pleadings 

and/or motions.

{¶12} This Court has also reviewed the docket in this matter which reflects that 

Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, with a Proof of Service, on 

February 11, 2011. A trial court acts and speaks only through its journal and parties are 

expected to keep themselves informed of the progress of their case. Savage v. Goda,

supra, citing Weaver v. Colwell Financial Corp. (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 139, 144, 596 

N.E.2d 617; Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn. (1986), 28 

Ohio St.3d 118, 124, 502 N.E.2d 599. 

{¶13} In the instant case, Appellants, as plaintiffs, were aware of what stage of 

discovery their case was in and further admitted receiving personal service of the 

summary judgment motion. 

{¶14} Appellants also appear to raise other arguments in their brief such as 

excusable neglect for counsel’s failure to timely respond to the summary judgment; 

however, Appellants have not assigned those issues as separate assignments of error, 

and we decline to address them. App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A). 

 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 4

{¶15} Appellants’ sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 

Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Edwards, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BRIAN WEAVER, et al. : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MILES PILLAR : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 2011 AP 03 0017 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to Appellants. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES