Opinion ID: 1280709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Oral Communication Constituting an Appearance

Text: In establishing what constitutes an appearance for purposes of the notice requirement that attaches under the provisions of Rule 55(b)(2), the majority states that any communication, be it oral or written, suffices to constitute an appearance, provided that such communication demonstrates either an interest in the pending litigation, or actual notice of the litigation. In formulating this new law, the majority leaves unanswered several related concerns. I am concerned that when this law is applied, the practicing lawyers may find themselves without the necessary guidance to proceed. This is because, in elevating to a syllabus point the concept of oral communications being sufficient to constitute an appearance under Rule 55, [2] the majority has failed to properly instruct the practitioner as to the parameters of oral communications that can properly be viewed as an appearance for purposes of the Rule 55. Other courts that have considered this issue have made clear that not just any oral communication will suffice to constitute an appearance for purposes of invoking the notice requirement of Rule 55(b)(2). As the court made clear in Alliance Group, Inc. v. Rosenfield, 115 Ohio App.3d 380, 685 N.E.2d 570 (1996), [a] telephone call between parties would not constitute an appearance unless circumstances give the call some legal effect. Id. at 577. Generally, an affirmative act is required that manifests an intention to defend the action. See id.; accord Miamisburg Motel v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 88 Ohio App.3d 117, 623 N.E.2d 163, 170 (1993) (recognizing that telephone call that indicates to moving party clear purpose to defend the suit is sufficient to constitute appearance and trigger notice requirements under Rule 55); see generally Scott K. Zesch, What Constitutes Appearance under Rule 55(b)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Providing that if Party Against Whom Default Judgment is Sought has Appeared in Action, that Party must be Served with Notice of Application for Judgment, 139 A.L.R. Fed. 603, § 9[a], [b] (1997). Not all conversations, however, will be sufficient to amount to an appearance under the rule. See, e.g., Ryan v. Collins, 481 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Ky.1972) (holding that defendant had not voluntarily taken a step in the main action that showed or from which it might be inferred that he had the intention of making some defense where defendant had conversation with plaintiff's attorney regarding pending action and plaintiff's counsel merely instructed defendant to take summonses to insurance company). While the issue of whether an appearance results from an oral communication will necessarily be a factual determination based on the nature of the conversation, as a general rule an appearance will result from a communication that conveys a clear intent to defend against the lawsuit at issue and may also be implied by language that indicates the defendant has taken or intends to take some steps related to the pending action that are either beneficial to the defendant or detrimental to the plaintiff's interests. See Heleasco Seventeen, Inc. v. Drake, 102 F.R.D. 909, 912 (D.Del.1984). Missing from the majority's adoption of this new point of law permitting an oral communication to constitute an appearance is the clarification that the communication must involve an indication on the defendant's part to take some action relative to the lawsuit. Absent such an affirmative indication, an oral communication is unlikely to rise to the level of the appearance necessary to trigger the notice requirements of Rule 55(b)(2).