Court Opinion

ID: 9913063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:06:31.360803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:58.007241
License: Public Domain

[Cite as U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4715.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 MAHONING COUNTY

                          U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                      v.

                                   RONALD J. SMITH ET AL.,

                                      Defendants-Appellants.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 22 MA 0111

                                   Application for Reconsideration

                                         BEFORE:
                David A. D’Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                Overruled.

Atty. David A. Wallace and Atty. Karen M. Cadieux, Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP, for
Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee (No Response Filed) and

Ronald J. Smith and Nancy L. Smith, Defendants-Appellants.

                                      Dated: December 26, 2023
                                                                                         –2–

PER CURIAM.

         {¶1}   This matter is before us on an application filed on December 20, 2023 by
Appellants, Ronald J. Smith and Nancy L. Smith, acting pro se, to reconsider our
December 11, 2023 decision overruling: (1) Appellants’ second application for
reconsideration of our previous decision overruling their original application to reconsider
our merits decision filed pursuant to App.R. 26(A)(1); (2) their application for
reconsideration of our decision overruling their motion to certify conflicts filed pursuant to
App.R. 26(A)(1); and (3) their application for en banc review filed pursuant to App.R.
26(A)(2).
         {¶2}   We explained in our December 11, 2023 opinion and judgment entry that
App.R. 26(A) does not provide for second or successive reconsiderations of our final
judgment in an appeal. State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 115, 2015-
Ohio-2754, ¶ 6; State v. Dew, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 6;
State v. Davis, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 160 (Jan. 12, 2012 J.E.). Despite the
foregoing pronouncement, Appellants seek reconsideration for the second time with
respect to their motion to certify conflict and for the third time with respect to our merits
decision.
         {¶3}   The only matter that has not been the subject of a previous application for
reconsideration in this current appeal is Appellants’ application for en banc review, which
we concluded was untimely. Appellants argue that the application was not untimely
insofar as they sought en banc review of our opinion on the original motion for
reconsideration of our merits decision as opposed to the merits decision itself.
Specifically, Appellants argue they requested en banc review of our decision on
September 22, 2023 “that denied their first motion for reconsideration, specifically, that
issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (12/20/23 App., p. 7.)
         {¶4}   In fact, the argument advanced in the application to certify conflict was the
subject of a motion for reconsideration filed in 2018 in a previous appeal of this case. We
wrote:

Case No. 22 MA 0111
                                                                                        –3–

       In their opening statement, and consistently throughout their application,
       Appellants contend that we violated our own precedent in their case
       because they contend the decision was based on arguments raised by U.S.
       Bank for the first time on appeal. This assertion is directed to our analysis
       of the dormant judgment entry, as U.S. Bank did not file an opposition brief
       prior to the trial court's dismissal of Appellants' Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion.

       Appellants are nominally correct. Typically, we do not consider arguments
       raised for the first time on appeal, Estate of Hohler v. Hohler, 7th Dist. No.
       10 CA 870, 197 Ohio App.3d 237, 2011-Ohio-5469, 967 N.E.2d 219, ¶ 18,
       citing Litva v. Richmond, 172 Ohio App.3d 349, 2007-Ohio-3499, 874
       N.E.2d 1243, at ¶ 18. However, we do conduct a thorough analysis of all
       caselaw that may be relevant on appeal, whether or not it was cited in a
       parties’ brief. For instance, in Blackstone v. Moore, 7th Dist. No. 14 MO
       0001, 2017-Ohio-8159, the Blackstones argued in their motion for
       reconsideration that our reliance on cases not cited in the briefs was
       inappropriate. We explained that “an appellate court is expected to conduct
       its own independent research and is not limited to consideration of only
       those cases cited by the parties.” Id. at ¶ 11. This is true even if the cases
       are cited for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, there was no procedural
       error in our underlying decision when we conducted our own research and
       relied on cases that were not cited in the trial court.

U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Smith, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0093, 2018-Ohio-
3770, ¶ 5-6.

       {¶5}    Insofar as Appellants have exhausted their rights pursuant to App.R. 26(A),
Appellants’ application is overruled.

Case No. 22 MA 0111
                                                    –4–

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

                             NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 22 MA 0111