Court Opinion

ID: 9926392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:08:21.196887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:44.318780
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Estate of Snodgrass, 2024-Ohio-228.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                      MORGAN COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF:                                     :   JUDGES:
                                                      :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
ESTATE OF ROBERT CARL                                 :   Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
SNODGRASS (DECEASED)                                  :   Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                                      :
AND                                                   :
                                                      :
ESTATE OF EMMA J.                                     :
SNODGRASS (DECEASED)                                  :   Case No. 23AP0008
                                                      :
                                                      :   OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                                  Appeal from the Morgan County
                                                          Probate Court, Case Nos. 17PE0115
                                                          & 21PE0030

JUDGMENT:                                                 Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                         January 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant                                   For Defendant-Appellee

DONALD E. WOOD                                            DANIEL P. CORCORAN
4437 Wright Avenue                                        424 Second Street
Whitehall, OH 43213                                       Marietta, OH 45750
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                        2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Donald Wood appeals the September 7, 2022 and August 2, 2023

judgments of the Morgan County Probate Court in the Matter of the Estate of Robert Carl

Snodgrass and the Estate of Emma J. Snodgrass.

                                   Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} On December 6, 2005, Wood entered into two oil and gas leases with

Robert Snodgrass. Wood then drilled two wells on the Snodgrass property.

       {¶ 3} On April 12, 2012, Snodgrass filed an affidavit of forfeiture with the Morgan

County Recorder's Office on both leases alleging Wood had violated the lease

agreement.

       {¶ 4} Seven months later, on January 18, 2013, Wood filed an affidavit of non-

forfeiture arguing he did not violate the lease agreements and the leases were still good.

Wood later removed his equipment and trailer from the Snodgrass property.

       {¶ 5} In 2017, the Ohio Division of Oil and Gas advised Wood that he had not

filed a "Form 7" which would have transferred the ownership and responsibility for the

operation of the wells back to Snodgrass.

       {¶ 6} On March 29, 2017, Wood sent a letter to Snodgrass asking him to file a

Form 7, but received no response. Snodgrass died on July 2, 2017. Wood did not learn

of his death until July of 2019.

       {¶ 7} Wood then sent a letter to the power of attorney for Robert’s surviving

spouse Emma, along with a completed Form 7 which he asked her to sign and file with

the Ohio Department of Oil and Gas. He received no response. Wood later learned Emma

died on September 1, 2020.
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                        3

       {¶ 8} In May of 2022, Wood was informed by the Ohio Department of Oil and Gas

that both wells must be plugged and that he was responsible for doing so since their

records reflected he is the owner of the wells.

       {¶ 9} On May 26, 2022, Wood filed a claim against the estates of Robert and

Emma. On September 7, 2022 the probate court found the claim was barred by the six-

month-rule contained in RC 2117.06(C).

       {¶ 10} Wood did not appeal the September 2, 2022 judgment entry.

       {¶ 11} Instead, on May 22, 2023 Wood filed with the Probate Court, a Notice to

Reconsider, a Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a Motion to Toll

Time from September 7, 2022 to May 8, 2023. In his motion to toll time Wood claimed he

was never served with the court’s September 7, 2022 judgment entry because it was sent

to Columbus, Ohio instead of Whitehall, Ohio.

       {¶ 12} Counsel for the estate filed a response arguing (1) that the proper city for

the zip code provided by Wood is Columbus; (2) that the September 2022 mailing was

not returned to the clerk; (3) that Wood had made no efforts for eight months to inquire

about the status of the matter, and (4) that a motion to reconsider is a nullity.

       {¶ 13} On June 7, 2023, counsel for the estate filed a supplemental response to

Wood’s motion to toll time. The supplemental response noted Wood received his mail

service of a copy of counsel’s previous response as evidenced by the green card signed

by Wood, which was sent to Columbus, Ohio. Counsel for the estate attached a copy of

the signed green card to the supplemental response.

       {¶ 14} On August 2, 2023, the probate court overruled each of Wood’s motions.

This is the second judgment Wood appeals from.
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                        4

        {¶ 15} On August 14, 2023, Wood filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.

The matter was assigned to the accelerated docket per Wood's request.

        {¶ 16} On September 11, 2023, this court denied Wood's motion for leave to file a

delayed appeal because the appellate rules do not provide for a delayed appeal in a civil

case.

        {¶ 17} On September 29, 2023, counsel for the estate filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal as untimely, and further noting this court had already denied the motion for leave

to file a delayed appeal. Wood replied, again arguing he was never served with the

September 2022 judgment entry.

        {¶ 18} Wood filed his brief on October 6, 2023. He raises three assignments of

error as follow:

                                             I

        {¶ 19} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT'S

CLAIM IS BARRED BY O.R.C. §2117.06(C)."

                                            II

        {¶ 20} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION

TO TOLL TIME FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 TO MAY 8, 2023."

                                            III

        {¶ 21} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION

TO RECONSIDER."
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                          5

       {¶ 22} We do not reach the merits of Wood's appeal as we find the matter was ripe

for review on September 7, 2022. The Probate Court's judgment was a final appealable

order and Wood does not argue otherwise. Wood had 30 days to file an appeal and failed

to do so. App.R. 4(A)(1). Timely filing is a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, we are

without jurisdiction to consider Wood's untimely appeal.

       {¶ 23} Moreover, while Wood did file a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal,

App.R. 5(A)(1) does not provide for delayed appeals in civil cases. Additionally, Wood's

May 22, 2023 motions filed with the Probate Court cannot serve to manufacture a timely

appeal.

       {¶ 24} But Wood argues Civ.R. 58(B) provides the thirty-day period only begins

when the clerk actually serves a party. That rule states:

              (B) Notice of Filing. When the court signs a judgment, the court shall

              endorse thereon a direction to the clerk to serve upon all parties not

              in default for failure to appear notice of the judgment and its date of

              entry upon the journal. Within three days of entering the judgment

              upon the journal, the clerk shall serve the parties in a manner

              prescribed by Civ. R. 5(B) and note the service in the appearance

              docket. Upon serving the notice and notation of the service in the

              appearance docket, the service is complete. The failure of the clerk

              to serve notice does not affect the validity of the judgment or the

              running of the time for appeal except as provided in App. R. 4(A).
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                          6

       {¶ 25} Wood argues his motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law serve as

an exception to the running of time for the appeal pursuant to App.R. 4(B)(2)(c) which

provides an exception when a party makes "a request for findings of fact and conclusions

of law under Civ.R. 52, Juv.R. 29(F)(3), Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii) or Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii)."

Applicable here is Civ.R. 52 which states in relevant part:

              When questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may

              be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties in writing

              requests otherwise before the entry of judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 58, or

              not later than seven days after the party filing the request has been given

              notice of the court's announcement of its decision, whichever is later, in

              which case, the court shall state in writing the findings of fact found

              separately from the conclusions of law.

       {¶ 26} Wood's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law was also grossly

untimely. Wood could have requested findings of fact and conclusions of law before the

entry of judgment and failed to do so. In any event, the August 2, 2023 judgment entry

indicates the court had already made findings of fact and conclusions of law in its

September 7, 2022 judgment entry.

       {¶ 27} Finally, we note that the Supreme Court of Ohio has found "[o]nce the clerk

has served notice of the entry and entered the appropriate notation in the docket, the

notice shall be deemed to have been served. The failure of any party to receive such

notice shall not affect the validity of the judgment or the running of the time for appeal."
Morgan County, Case No. 23AP0008                                                       7

Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851 (1988) at paragraph

2(c) of the syllabus, accord In re Roberts, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 2005-Ohio-2672 ¶ 10.

       {¶ 28} Wood does not argue that the clerk failed to mail notice nor that the clerk

failed to make the appropriate notation in the docket. He argues the clerk mailed the

notice to Columbus, Ohio, instead of Whitehall, Ohio. According to the record, however,

the mailing was not returned to the clerk, and the United States Postal Service

recommends using Columbus and not Whitehall for Wood's zip code. Additionally, Wood

signed for service of another document sent to the Columbus, Ohio address.

       {¶ 29} Appellee's motion to dismiss is well taken. For the foregoing reasons, the

appeal is dismissed.

By King, J.,

Delaney, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.

AJK/rw