Court Opinion

ID: 9815290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:35:16.461457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:27.921127
License: Public Domain

On Motion to strike.
Fess, J.
This cause came on for further consideration upon a motion by plaintiff, appellee herein, to strike the journal entry prepared by the court sua sponte and filed with the clerk for journalization pursuant to the decision of this court reversing the judgment of the Common Pleas Court and remanding the cause thereto for a new trial. The reason assigned in support of the motion is that the preparation of the entry and the filing thereof are in direct violation of the provisions of Rule VIII of this court, with respect to the settling and approval of journal entries.
That a court has inherent power to prepare and file with the clerk for journalization the formal record of its judgment is indisputable. The purpose and intent of Rule VIII is to afford counsel for the prevailing party as well as opposing counsel the courtesy of assisting the court in the performance of its function of recording its judgments. The rule relieves the court of the duty of drawing such entries. Nevertheless, the court has the ultimate duty to approve journal entries and, invariably, when counsel are unable to agree, draws its own entries. Frequently, entries approved by counsel on both sides are disapproved, and such entries are redrawn and filed by the court. *205When circumstances warrant, the court in the exercise of its discretion incident to its inherent power and duty may sua sponte draw and file its entry without consultation with counsel. This is not a violation of Rule VIII but the exercise of the court’s duty to record its judgment.
In the instant case, in the light of the absence of cooperation and the animosity between opposing counsel, as disclosed by the record of the proceedings below, it was apparent that the settling of the journal entry could well be unduly delayed. The court therefore elected to draw the entry sua sponte. At the time the opinion was filed, counsel were notified that the entry was to be drawn by the member writing the opinion and would be filed within ten days thereafter. The instant motion was filed the day after the entry was filed with the clerk for journalization.
Notwithstanding, in the opinion of a majority of the court, the preparation, approval and filing of the entry was valid, leave was granted plaintiff, appellee herein, to file objections thereto for the consideration of the court. Objections filed pursuant to such leave merely seek an amplification of what was said in the opinion regarding misconduct.
Section 2505.38, Revised Code, requires the court, upon reversing a judgment, upon request of either party, to specify in writing the grounds of reversal. Iu conformity with the doctrine that a court speaks only from its journal entry, grounds for reversal should be specified in the journal entry. State, ex rel. Cleveland Concession Co., v. City of Cleveland, 89 Ohio App., 408, 102 N. E. (2d), 731. In our opinion, the practice sometimes resorted to of merely stating as grounds “for reasons stated in the opinion” is careless and improper. Although there is no particular criticism to be directed to employing the language of an opinion verbatim, the better practice is to summarize the several grounds of reversal. Although no request to specify the grounds for reversal was made, the entry prepared by the court specifies seven grounds, including that of misconduct of court and counsel, which adequately apprise counsel as well as a reviewing court with respect to the grounds of reversal.
Therefore, the motion of the plaintiff to strike the journal *206entry and her alternative motion to correct the same are overruled.
McClintock, P. J., concurs.
Putnam, J., not participating.
Fess, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Fifth Appellate District.