Court Opinion

ID: 9381197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 13:06:30.534034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.718828
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Smith v. SOCI Petroleum, Inc., 2023-Ohio-907.]

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 BRIAN D. SMITH,                                      :   APPEAL NO. C-220245
                                                          TRIAL NO. A-1504181
         Plaintiff-Appellant,                         :

   VS.                                                :     O P I N I O N.

 SOCI PETROLEUM, INC.,                                :

         Defendant,                                   :

   and                                                :

 JOHN LOGUE, ADMINISTRATOR OF                         :
 THE OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS’
 COMPENSATION,                                        :

       Defendant-Appellee.                            :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 22, 2023

Nager, Romaine & Schneiberg Co. L.P.A., and C. Bradley Howenstein, for Plaintiff-
Appellant,

David Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Barbara L. Barber, Assistant Attorney
General, for Defendant-Appellee.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

WINKLER, Judge.

       {¶1}   Plaintiff-appellant Brian D. Smith appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas that denied his Civ.R. 60(B) motion without

addressing the merits because it found jurisdiction lacking. Because the trial court had

jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.

                     II. Background Facts and Procedure

       {¶2}   This is the second appeal in this case involving Smith’s claim filed with

the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) to participate in the Ohio

workers’ compensation fund for a workplace injury. Smith prevailed administratively

on that claim. Subsequently, pursuant to R.C. 4123.512, Smith’s employer, Soci

Petroleum, Inc., (“SOCI”) filed a workers’ compensation appeal in the court of

common pleas that began a workers’ compensation judicial action. Within 30 days

after a notice of appeal is filed, the claimant in a workers’ compensation judicial action

has an affirmative duty to file a petition containing a statement of facts demonstrating

a claim to participate in the workers’ compensation fund. R.C. 4123.512(D). The

claimant also bears the burden of proving his right to participate in the workers’

compensation fund by a preponderance of the evidence regardless of the

administrative decision. Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 134 Ohio

St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-5639, 982 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 17.

       {¶3}   SOCI moved for dismissal of the workers’ compensation judicial action

for failure to prosecute. The trial court granted that motion on April 20, 2016. Though

that April 2016 judgment was a final order, Smith moved for “reconsideration” and

filed an affidavit in support. SOCI and BWC filed a memorandum opposing

reconsideration and affidavits in support of the dismissal.

                                            2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶4}     Before the trial court ruled on the “motion for reconsideration,” Smith

appealed the trial court’s April 2016 judgment to this court. See Smith v. SOCI

Petroleum, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160477, 2017-Ohio-7224 (“Smith I”). About

a month after perfecting his appeal, Smith filed in the trial court a Civ.R. 60(B) motion

to set aside the April 2016 judgment. He argued that dismissal of the workers’

compensation judicial action was improper because he had not received sufficient

notice of the action, and he filed an affidavit in support.

       {¶5}     This court in Smith I ordered a limited remand that permitted the court

of common pleas to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The trial court did not rule on the

Civ.R. 60(B) motion before the expiration of the limited remand period. This court

then addressed the merits of Smith’s appeal that challenged the dismissal of the

workers’ compensation judicial action for failure to prosecute. Based on the record,

which included only the materials filed at the time the trial court had entered the

judgment dismissing the workers’ compensation judicial action, see id. at ¶ 3, fn. 1, we

affirmed the trial court’s April 2016 judgment. Id. at ¶ 5. We did not consider whether

Smith’s motions for “reconsideration” or for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), which he

supported with evidence outside the record, had merit. See id. at ¶ 3, fn. 1.

       {¶6}     Years later, the court of common pleas entertained Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B)

motion to set aside the April 2016 judgment. In an entry dated April 27, 2022, the

trial court indicated it lacked jurisdiction to grant any relief absent a remand from a

higher court.

       {¶7}     Smith now appeals from the April 2022 judgment, arguing in a single

assignment of error that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined it

                                            3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The BWC has filed

a brief in support of the trial court’s judgment.

                                      II. Analysis

       {¶8}    It is well settled that the filing of a notice of appeal divests a lower court

of jurisdiction to consider a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment. See

Howard v. Catholic Social Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 147, 637 N.E.2d 890 (1994);

Lambda Research v. Jacobs, 170 Ohio App.3d 750, 2007-Ohio-309, 869 N.E.2d 39, ¶

21 (1st Dist.) (“When a notice of appeal is filed, it confers jurisdiction on the court of

appeals and divests the common pleas court of its control over the aspects of the case

involved in the appeal. * * * Thus, the trial court is prohibited from taking any action

that is inconsistent with the appellate court’s ability to review, affirm, modify, or

reverse the judgment being appealed.”).

       {¶9}    While an appeal is pending, a reviewing court through a remand order

may confer jurisdiction on the lower court for consideration of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion

to set aside the judgment appealed. Howard at 147, cited in State ex rel. Target Auto

Repair v. Morales, 168 Ohio St.3d 88, 2022-Ohio-2062, 195 N.E.3d 1027, ¶ 9.

However, after appeals have been finalized, a lower court has jurisdiction to rule on a

Civ.R. 60(B) motion. See, e.g., Carlson v. City of Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-210238, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶ 16 (involving a post-appeal Civ.R. 60(B) motion); Cherol

v. Sieben Invests., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 05MA112, 2006-Ohio-7048 (Vukocich, J.,

concurring) (Admonishing the trial court for failing to rule on a pending Civ.R. 60(B)

motion during a limited remand by the appellate court and explaining that “[w]ith the

                                             4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

resolution of this appeal, the trial court regains jurisdiction to decide the motion

pending before it.”).

       {¶10} In this case, the trial court considered Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to

set aside the April 2016 judgment in April 2022, long after all the appeals in the case

had been completed. Because no appeals were pending, no other court had jurisdiction

over the case. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction in April 2022 to entertain

Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the April 2016 judgment. The trial court erred

when it held otherwise and did not review the merits of Smith’s motion, which was

based on new evidentiary material.

                                  III. Conclusion

       {¶11} Where no appeal of the April 2016 judgment was pending, the trial court

erred when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Smith’s Civ.R.

60(B) motion to vacate that April 2016 judgment. Consequently, we sustain Smith’s

assignment of error, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand the cause for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                               Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           5