[Cite as Shontz v. Shontz, 2013-Ohio-4849.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO 

RICHARD M. SHONTZ, JR., : MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

CASE NO. 2013-T-0067

 - vs - :

VIKKI L. SHONTZ, et al., :

 Defendants-Appellees. :

Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 

2011 CVA 0019. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

William P. McGuire, William P. McGuire Co., L.P.A., 106 East Market Street, Suite 

#705, P.O. Box 1243, Warren, OH 44482-1243 (For Plaintiff-Appellant). 

Robert R. Melnick, Melnick & Melnick, 16 Wick Avenue, Suite 504, Youngstown, OH 

44503 (For Defendant-Appellee, Vikki L. Shontz). 

John M. Rossi, 143 West Main Street, Cortland, OH 44410 (Guardian ad litem). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} This accelerated calendar appeal is from the Trumbull County Court of 

Common Pleas. Appellant Richard M. Shontz, Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for 

reconsideration of an order dismissing his complaint seeking damages relating to 

Appellee’s Vikki L. Shontz’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in managing a trust. 

For the following reasons, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 
 2

{¶2} Richard filed a complaint against his co-trustee Vikki alleging various 

breaches of her fiduciary duties. In her answer to the complaint, Vikki denied the 

allegations and asserted a counterclaim against Richard alleging that she is entitled to 

compensation for various advances she made in maintaining some realty that is 

purportedly a trust asset. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint; however the 

counterclaim remains unresolved. 

{¶3} Richard filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment entry dismissing 

the complaint. The trial court summarily denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

{¶4} Ohio law provides that appellate courts have jurisdiction to review only 

final orders or judgments. See generally, Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; 

R.C. 2505.02. If an order is not final and appealable, an appellate court has no 

jurisdiction to review the matter and it must be dismissed. 

{¶5} "An order of a court is a final appealable order only if the requirements of 

both R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B), are met." State ex rel. Scruggs v. 

Sadler, 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, ¶5; see also, Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent 

State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989), syllabus. 

{¶6} Civ.R. 54(B) states in pertinent part that: 

{¶7} "When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as 

a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising out of the 

same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may 

enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only 

upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” 
 3

{¶8} We first must determine whether the judgment entry dismissing the 

complaint was a final appealable order. As the trial court dismissed some but not all of 

the claims for relief, a Civ.R. 54(B) declaration was required to make the dismissal 

judgment entry a final appealable order. We therefore find that the dismissal judgment 

entry was interlocutory and thus not a final appealable order. 

{¶9} As to the reconsideration entry, we note that orders on motions for 

reconsideration are interlocutory orders and are not subject to immediate appeal. 

Taylor v. Leader Transp. Sys., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-115, 2004-Ohio-6330, ¶10; 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wackerle, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96223, 2011-Ohio-4261, 

¶8-9. 

{¶10} The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and this matter is 

remanded for further proceedings. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

concur.