[Cite as CACH, L.L.C. v. Rutter , 2010-Ohio-4876.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ATHENS COUNTY 

CACH, LLC, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 09CA33 

 : 

 vs. : Released: October 4, 2010

 : 

BEVERLY RUTTER, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

: ENTRY 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES:

Lawrence J. Roach, The Law Office of Larry Roach, Copley, Ohio, for 

Appellant. 

Beverly Rutter, The Plains, Ohio, Appellee, pro se. 1

_____________________________________________________________ 

 

McFarland, P.J.: 

{¶1} Appellant, Cach, LLC, appeals from a decision of the Athens 

County Municipal Court granting summary judgment in its favor, as against 

Appellee, Beverly Rutter. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court 

erred in only granting judgment for $1,380.64, which was based upon 

Appellant’s submission of a partial ledger history, but was not in 

conjunction with discovery responses. Because we find that the decision 

 

1

 Appellee has elected not to file a brief on appeal. Accordingly, by Magistrate’s Order dated February 2, 

2010, we deemed this matter submitted without further participation of Appellee. 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 2

and journal entry did not constitute a final, appealable order, we dismiss 

Appellant’s appeal. 

FACTS 

{¶2} On January 20, 2009, Appellant, Cach, LLC filed a complaint 

and first request for admissions against Appellee, Beverly Rutter. In the 

complaint, Appellant alleged that it became the owner, by virtue of 

assignment, of an account issued to Appellee from GE Electric Corp/GE 

Money Bank. The complaint further alleged that the account in question 

was canceled due to Appellee’s failure to abide by the terms of the 

agreement. Thus, Appellant’s complaint sought damages in the amount of 

$4,325.32 owing on the account plus pre-judgment interest at a rate of 5% in 

the amount of $421.27; post-judgment interest thereafter at the statutory rate 

of 5%; all court fees and costs associated with the matter; and all other relief 

available in equity or law. 

{¶3} Attached to the complaint were exhibits A through C, which 

consisted of an affidavit attesting to the original issuance of the account to 

Appellee and subsequent sale of the account to Appellant, multiple monthly 

statements that were sent to Appellee, and a copy of a Wal-Mart Business 

Revolving Credit Account Agreement. Appellee responded to Appellant’s 

first request for admissions, denying each admission on the basis that the 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 3

account number listed in the request for admissions differed from her 

original account number.2

 Appellant then issued a second request for 

admissions. Appellee’s responses again denied the requests, claiming that 

her card was a Wal-Mart card issued by Wal-Mart, not GE Money Bank. 

{¶4} Appellant subsequently filed for summary judgment on the 

account. It then filed a third request for admissions, to which Appellee 

failed to respond. After considering Appellant’s motion, as well as an 

account ledger history submitted by Appellant at the request of the court, the 

court deemed Appellant’s third request for admissions to be admitted and 

also granted summary judgment in favor of Appellant. Specifically, the trial 

court’s August 18, 2009, “Journal Entry” provides as follows: 

“DECISION: Summary Judgment is granted to Plaintiff against Defendant 

in the amount of $1,380.64 plus interest at 5% per annum from this date.” 

Appellant timely appealed this grant of summary judgment in its favor, 

assigning a single assignment of error for our review. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ONLY GRANTING JUDGMENT 

FOR $1,380.64 WHICH WAS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S 

SUBMISSION OF A PARTIAL LEDGER HISTORY BUT NOT IN 

CONJUNCTION WITH DISCOVERY RESPONSES.” 

 

2

 Appellant alleged in the complaint that upon assignment of the account, the account number was changed 

from 6032203161644124 to 14035180070109307. 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 4

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial 

court erred in only granting summary judgment for $1,380.64, which was 

based upon Appellant’s submission of a partial ledger history, but was not in 

conjunction with discovery responses. As set forth above, Appellant’s initial 

filing was a complaint on an account. In its complaint, Appellant requested 

1) judgment against Appellee in the amount of the $4,325.32 owing on the 

account, plus pre-judgment interest at a rate of 5% in the amount of $421.27; 

2) post-judgment interest thereafter at the statutory rate of 5%; and 3) all 

court fees and costs. The record indicates that after Appellant moved the 

court for summary judgment, it filed a third request for admissions to which 

Appellee failed to respond. In its entry granting summary judgment, the trial 

court deemed admitted Appellant’s third request for admissions; however, it 

only granted what appears to be partial summary judgment in the amount of 

$1,380.64, which is based upon a partial ledger3

 submitted by Appellant, at 

the request of the court, rather than the amount demanded in the complaint 

or in the admissions. 

{¶6} Before we address the merits of this case, we must first address a 

threshold jurisdictional problem. Ohio courts of appeals only have appellate 

 

3

 Although Appellant makes reference to the trial court’s request and consideration of partial ledger, it does 

not appear that the document was included in the record before us on appeal. 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 5

jurisdiction to review “final orders” of inferior courts within their district. 

Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2505.03(A). A final 

order is one that, inter alia, actually disposes of the case. See State Auto. 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titanium Metals Corp., 108 Ohio St.3d 540, 2006-Ohio1713, 844 N.E.2d 1199, at ¶ 10. If a judgment is not final and appealable, we 

have no jurisdiction to review the matter and the case must be dismissed. 

Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems v. Mullins, 161 Ohio App.3d 12, 

2005-Ohio-2303, 829 N.E.2d 326, at ¶ 17; Prod. Credit Assn. v. Hedges

(1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 207, 210, 621 N.E.2d 1360, fn. 2; Kouns v. 

Pemberton (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 499, 501, 617 N.E.2d 701. Further, 

“[a]lthough neither party raised the question of whether the trial court's order 

was final, an appellate court is permitted to do so sua sponte. Chef Italiano 

Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86.” Schneider, et al. v. 

Sherman, et al., Shelby App. No. 17-91-11, 1991 WL 256501. 

{¶7} In the case presently before us, we do not believe that the trial 

court’s August 18, 2009, “Journal Entry” fully disposes of the case. Rather, 

the document appears to simply be a partial grant of summary judgment in 

the amount of $1,380.64, but does not dismiss the case or enter judgment for 

the victorious party. See, Bapst, et al. v. Goodwin, et al., Pike App. No. 

08CA780, 2009-Ohio-6244 (holding that the trial court’s “decision and 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 6

journal entry” that granted “defendant’s motion for summary judgment[,]” 

but did not make actual disposition of the case did not constitute a final 

order.); See, also, Schneider, supra, (reasoning, based upon language similar 

to the language in the entry sub judice, that the court’s journal entry was not 

a final, appealable order, partly because “the order simply granted plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment. It did not render that judgment.”). 

{¶8} As we reasoned in Bapst, supra: “Ordinarily, judgments set out 

the rights of the parties to a lawsuit. See Minix v. Collier (Jul. 16, 1999), 

Scioto App. No. 98CA2619. Any document that purports to constitute a 

judgment should contain sufficient language to terminate the action. See 

Vanest v. Pillsbury, Co. (1997) 124 Ohio App.3d 525, 534, 706 N.E.2d 825, 

at fn. 4; McCall v. Ohio State Racing Comm. (Dec. 14, 1993), Franklin App. 

No. 93APE09-1216. A decision, however, is not a judgment from which an 

appeal will lie. Laws v. Board of Liquor Control (1958), 106 Ohio App. 233, 

236, 153 N.E.2d 165.” Bapst at ¶9. 

 {¶9} The entry here does not dispose of the case and, as such, cannot 

be considered a final order. The entry does not dismiss Appellant’s claim as 

to the remaining principal amount demanded in the complaint, nor does it 

address Appellant’s claims for pre-judgment interest. Further, and as in 

Bapst, the entry does not assess court costs pursuant to Civ.R. 54(D), which 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 7

further illustrates that it does not constitute a final order. In light of our 

determination that the judgment appealed from is not a final appealable 

order, we are without jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s assigned error. 

Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed. 

 APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Harsha, J., dissenting: 

{¶10} Based upon the rationale of our prior opinion in Jones v. 

McAlarney Pools, Spas & Billiards, Inc., Washington App. No. 07CA34, 

2008-Ohio-1365, and its interpretation of Internatl. Bhd. of Electrical 

Workers, Local Union No. 8 v. Vaughn Industries, LLC, 116 Ohio St.3d 335, 

2007-Ohio-6439, I respectfully dissent. 

{¶11} I do not view the requests in the prayer for relief as claims or 

causes of action that must be explicitly addressed. Rather in keeping with 

Jones, I view them as having been overruled sub silentio to the extent they 

were not addressed. Furthermore, I do not view the court’s award of less 

than the amount requested in the prayer for relief as indicating the court has 

anything else to decide. 
Athens App. No. 09CA33 8

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 It is ordered that the APPEAL BE DISMISSED and that the Appellee 

recover of Appellant costs herein taxed. 

 The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing 

the Athens County Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. 

 Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of 

the date of this entry. 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Exceptions. 

Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion. 

Harsha, J.: Dissents with Dissenting Opinion. 

 

 For the Court, 

 

BY: _________________________ 

 Matthew W. McFarland 

 Presiding Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

 Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final 

judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from 

the date of filing with the clerk.