Manson v. Gurney

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Robert Gurney, Sr.'s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate a default judgment. Although Gurney asserted that the plaintiffs had sued the wrong person and that he had a meritorious defense, the court held that he failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect because he knowingly ignored the complaint and notice of the default hearing. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Holdings

1. A movant under Civ.R. 60(B) must establish a meritorious defense or claim, entitlement to relief under one of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5), and a timely motion.
2. Gurney was not entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) because his deliberate decision to ignore a complaint and default-hearing notice after receiving actual notice did not constitute qualifying mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Gurney's Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the default judgment.
2. Whether Gurney demonstrated entitlement to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) based on mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect when he knowingly ignored the complaint and default-hearing notice because he believed the plaintiffs had sued the wrong person.

Disposition

affirmed