Camp-Out v. Adkins, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2007)

2007 Ohio 447
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 29, 2007
DocketNo. WD-06-057.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2007 Ohio 447 (Camp-Out v. Adkins, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2007)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Camp-Out v. Adkins, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2007), 2007 Ohio 447 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} Appellee, Camp-Out Inc., has filed a motion to strike the brief filed by appellants, Kenneth and Gregory Adkins (collectively referred to as "Adkins"), and to dismiss their appeal. Adkins filed a memorandum in opposition. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

{¶ 2} The appeal stems from a dispute over the Camp-Out Inc.'s use of Adkins' pole barn and the property on which it sits as storage space for shelving and trailers. Camp-Out filed a complaint against Adkins and Adkins filed a counter-claim against Camp-Out. Adkins filed a motion for injunctive relief against Camp-Out which was denied on May 1, 2006, following a hearing on April 26, 2006.

{¶ 3} The parties then apparently came to an agreement; on June 13, 2006, the trial court judge signed an order reflecting a settlement and stating that the matter will be removed from the court's trial docket and that the parties will submit a dismissal entry within 60 days. One month later, Camp-Out Inc. filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, to hold Adkins in contempt, and for attorney fees and costs. Camp-Out contended that Adkins prevented it from removing its property as agreed to in the settlement. On July 13, 2006, the motion was partially granted and the court ordered Adkins to allow Camp-Out to remove its property and to pay Camp-Out for the increased costs, expenses, and attorney fees it incurred; it did not hold Adkins in contempt. Camp-Out was given ten days to submit documentation of its costs to the court for approval.

{¶ 4} On July 26, 2006, Camp-Out filed a motion requesting that the court release to it the certificates of title to the trailers as set forth in the settlement agreement. Camp-Out also filed its documentation of the costs awarded it on July 13, 2006, a total of $7,080.03. On July 31, 2006, the judge granted the motion, finding that Camp-Out complied with the settlement agreement and was therefore entitled to the certificates of title; the judge also awarded Camp-Out judgment against Adkins for $7,080.03. Adkins filed a motion to reconsider the July 13 and July 31 judgments. The court denied the motion to reconsider.

{¶ 5} Adkins timely appealed from all four judgments; the denial of its motion for injunctive relief on May 1, the grant of Camp-Out's motion to enforce settlement agreement on July 13, the judgment for $7,080.03 on July 31, and the denial of the motion to reconsider on August 15, 2006. Adkins filed a praecipe with the notice of appeal that indicates that the record on appeal will include a transcript of the April 26, 2006 hearing on the motion for injunctive relief. On October 10, 2006, the record on appeal was timely filed but without a transcript of the April 26 hearing. We assume that Adkins decided not to include the transcript in the record. The parties have both filed their appellate briefs.

{¶ 6} Appellee, Camp-Out, filed the present motion to dismiss stating that it is the duty of the appellant to transmit the record pursuant to App.R. 10(A), and without the April 26 transcript the record is incomplete and has not been "timely filed." App.R. 10(A) states:

{¶ 7} "(A) Time for transmission; duty of appellant

{¶ 8} "The record on appeal, including the transcript and exhibits necessary for the determination of the appeal, shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court of appeals when the record is complete for the purposes of appeal, or when forty days, which is reduced to twenty days for an accelerated calendar case, have elapsed after the filing of the notice of appeal and no order extending time has been granted under subdivision (C). After filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 9(B) and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record. * * * ."

{¶ 9} Contrary to Camp-Out's assertion, it is not the duty of appellant to transmit the record on appeal, it is the duty of the clerk of court. See App.R. 10(B):

{¶ 10} "(B) Duty of clerk to transmit the record

{¶ 11} "The clerk of the trial court shall prepare the certified copy of the docket and journal entries, assemble the original papers, (or in the instance of an agreed statement of the case pursuant to Rule 9(D), the agreed statement of the case), and transmit the record upon appeal to the clerk of the court of appeals within the time stated in subdivision (A)."

{¶ 12} Appellant's duty under App.R. 10(A) is to "comply with the provisions of Rule 9(B) and * * * take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record." App.R. 9(B) requires appellant to order the transcripts that "the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record." Appellant did order the April 26 transcript but failed to follow through and have it prepared for inclusion in the record.

{¶ 13} In support of its motion to dismiss, Camp-Out cites App.R. 11(C), which states:

{¶ 14} "(C) Dismissal for failure of appellant to cause timely transmission of record

{¶ 15} "If the appellant fails to cause timely transmission of the record, any appellee may file a motion in the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal. The motion shall be supported by a certificate of the clerk of the trial court showing the date and substance of the judgment or order from which the appeal was taken, the date on which the notice of appeal was filed, the expiration date of any order extending the time for transmitting the record, and by proof of service. The appellant may respond within ten days of such service."

{¶ 16} This rule seems to conflict with App.R. 10(B) which charges the clerk of court with timely transmission of the record. In reading the two rules together and giving meaning to both of them, we believe that App.R. 11(C)'s purpose is to ensure that the appellant obtains any extensions of time needed by the clerk of court to assemble and transmit the record on appeal. However, since the record on appeal in this case was timely filed, we need not address and resolve this conflict in this case.

{¶ 17} Camp-Out's argument in support of its motion to dismiss is that even though the record on appeal was timely filed, since it was filed without the transcript which appellant indicated would be included in the record, it is incomplete and not "timely filed." Camp-Out also states that the appeal should be dismissed because exclusion of the April 26 transcript is prejudicial to it. Neither party has cited any case law on the subject.

{¶ 18} Our research has revealed the basic rule that it is appellant's duty to ensure that the record contains all that is necessary for the reviewing court to determine the appeal. See Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v.Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 19 ("[W]here a transcript of any proceeding is necessary for disposition of any question on appeal, the appellant bears the burden of taking the steps required to have the transcript prepared for inclusion in the record. Knapp v. EdwardsLaboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 15 O.O.3d 218, 400 N.E.2d 384.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mancan, Inc. v. Al's Auto Servs., Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026
Callan v. Callan
2026 Ohio 845 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026)
Finn v. Rutherford
2026 Ohio 760 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026)
In Re V.W., Ca2007-07-086 (6-23-2008)
2008 Ohio 3074 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 Ohio 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-out-v-adkins-unpublished-decision-1-29-2007-ohioctapp-2007.