Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Todd L. Hatfield’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion arising from the dismissal of his mandamus action. The court held that alleged errors in the court of appeals’ reasoning should have been raised through a timely appeal and that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot substitute for an appeal.
Holdings
- A litigant may not use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment as a substitute for a timely appeal.
- Hatfield did not establish a proper basis for extraordinary relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which is reserved for extraordinary and unusual cases when the interests of justice warrant relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court of appeals correctly denied Hatfield's third Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion seeking relief from the order striking his second Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
- Whether alleged errors in the court of appeals' reasoning and dismissal of the mandamus action could be raised through a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion rather than through a timely appeal.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1205, 2007-Ohio-3735, ¶¶ 2-3, 11(followed)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988)(followed)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994)(followed)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus(followed)
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631 N.E.2d 150 (1994)(followed)
- Adomeit v. Baltimore, 39 Ohio App.2d 97, 105, 316 N.E.2d 469 (8th Dist. 1974)(followed)
- Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 9(followed)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 15(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…