Court Opinion

ID: 9370476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 19:08:36.583245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.522724
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Homestead Interiors, Inc. v. Hines, 2023-Ohio-413.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 GEAUGA COUNTY

HOMESTEAD INTERIORS, INC.,                              CASE NO. 2022-G-0053

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                        Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                          Chardon Municipal Court

PHILLIP HINES,
                                                        Trial Court No. 2018 CVF 00577
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                     Decided: February 13, 2023
                                     Judgment: Appeal dismissed

George L. Badovick, 13033 Ravenna Road, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Glenn E. Forbes and Monica R. Zibbel, Forbes Law, LLC, 166 Main Street, Painesville,
OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Pending before this court is defendant-appellant, Phillip Hines’, Motion for

Remand, filed on December 17, 2022, seeking “an Order remanding this matter to the

Chardon Municipal Court * * * to enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” Nothing

has been filed by plaintiff-appellee, Homestead Interiors, Inc. Upon consideration of the

Motion for Remand as well as the Order from which the appeal has been taken, the

present appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

        {¶2}     The appealed Order, dated November 10, 2022, provides that “the

Defendant’s Counterclaim was groundless, and the Defendant maintained the action in
bad faith.” Thus, “the Plaintiff remains entitled to the Judgment of $7,850,” and “a hearing

will be set forthwith before the Magistrate to determine whether additional attorney’s fees

should be awarded.”

       {¶3}   On November 18, 2022, Hines filed a Request for Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law.

       {¶4}   On November 30, 2022, the municipal court issued an Order that Hines’

Request would be “held in abeyance awaiting the Eleventh District Court of Appeals[’]

decision on a pending Motion for Reconsideration.” This Motion for Reconsideration was

filed as part of Appellate Case No. 2021-G-0024 and had been denied by this Court on

November 29.

       {¶5}   On December 9, 2022, Hines filed his Notice of Appeal from the November

10 Order.

       {¶6}   Ohio Appellate Rule 4(B)(2)(d) provides: “In a civil case * * *, if a party files

* * * a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law * * * then the time for filing a

notice of appeal from the judgment or final order in question begins to run as to all parties

when the trial court enters an order resolving the * * * post-judgment filing[].” The

foregoing provision tolls the time for filing a Notice of Appeal. It was not necessary for

the municipal court to refrain from ruling on the Request for Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law pending this Court’s ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration. “A

motion for reconsideration has no effect on the mandate absent a stay, so a trial court

may proceed immediately to exercise any jurisdiction returned to it by the mandate,

notwithstanding the pendency of a motion for reconsideration.” Painter & Pollis, Ohio

Appellate Practice, Section 7:33 (Nov.2022); State v. Moore, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13

                                              2

Case No. 2022-G-0053
MA 60, 2014-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10. Nor was it necessary for Hines to file his Notice of Appeal

while the Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law remained pending.

       {¶7}   Moreover, the appealed order expressly provides for the possible award of

additional attorney’s fees.    “[I]t is well-settled law that a judgment deferring final

adjudication of a request for attorney fees is not a final appealable order.” (Citation

omitted.) Echols v. Echols, 2022-Ohio-1719, 190 N.E.3d 698, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.); DES

Material & Supply Co., LLC v. Pincus, LLC, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2020-G-0255, 2020-

Ohio-4360, ¶ 7 (“[u]ntil the attorney fees amount is determined * * * this judgment is not a

final appealable order”).

       {¶8}   Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for lack of a final order. The

municipal court may rule on the Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and

Hines may file a new appeal upon a determination regarding attorney fees.

       {¶9}   Appeal dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

                                             3

Case No. 2022-G-0053