Cosari v. Cosari

2023 Ohio 1126

Opinion

[Cite as Cosari v. Cosari, 2023-Ohio-1126.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

BRANDY L. COSARI C.A. No. 30214

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE RAYMOND A. COSARI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2013 10 2832

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: April 5, 2023

HENSAL, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Raymond Cosari appeals an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division, that granted Brandy Cosari’s motion for relief from judgment under

Civil Rule 60(A). For the following reasons, this Court vacates the trial court’s order.

I.

{¶2} In November 2021, the trial court held a hearing regarding the parties’ child support

obligations. According to the parties, they reached an agreement at the hearing, which they placed

on the record. Following the hearing, Mother prepared an agreed judgment entry, which the court

signed. Less than a week later, Mother moved for relief from judgment, arguing that one of the

provisions in the agreed judgment entry inadvertently did not reflect the agreement that the parties

had reached at the hearing. She also submitted a proposed amended entry, which suggested that

Father had agreed to the correction. Mother acknowledges that the proposed order incorrectly

indicated Father’s approval of the amended entry. Although Father submitted a brief that opposed 2

Mother’s motion, the trial court issued an order correcting the entry. Father has appealed,

assigning two errors.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER CORRECTING AGREED ENTRY OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION.

{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court incorrectly granted

Mother’s motion for relief from judgment. He argues that the court ignored his brief in opposition

to the motion and did not even hold an attorney conference to confirm the parties’ positions.

According to Father, the proposed amended order that Mother submitted to the court purported to

have his signature on it, but he was never even provided a copy of it.

{¶4} Mother acknowledges that she mistakenly submitted a proposed order to the court

with a signature line indicating that Father had approved the entry. After realizing the error, she

contends that she filed a notice of mistaken submission to the court. Mother, nevertheless, argues

that the corrected judgment entry does reflect the agreement that was read into the record and notes

that Father has not had a transcript of that hearing prepared to establish what was agreed to at the

hearing.

{¶5} Civil Rule 60(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments,

orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be

corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such

notice, if any, as the court orders.” Although Mother argues that the corrected entry reflects the

parties’ agreement, she acknowledges that she submitted a proposed order to the court that

mistakenly represented that Father had agreed to it. Because of Father’s alleged agreement, the 3

trial court may have considered his subsequent objection to the corrected entry waived. See

Berlovan v. Berlovan, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0052-M, 2015-Ohio-1245, ¶ 5 (concluding party

waived substantive challenges to judgment entry that she signed). Accordingly, upon review of

the record, we conclude that the January 6, 2022, order correcting the agreed entry must be vacated.

Father’s first assignment of error is sustained.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SETTING THE 60(A) MOTION OF THE APPELLEE FOR A HEARING WHEN THE ALLEGED “CLERICAL ERROR” WAS A DELIBERATELY NEGOTIATED TERM AND APPELLEE MERELY SUFFERED FROM BUYER’S REMORSE.

{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court incorrectly

determined that its judgment entry contained a clerical error. Considering our resolution of

Father’s first assignment of error, we conclude that this argument is premature.

III.

{¶7} Father’s first assignment of error is sustained. His second assignment of error is

premature. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is

vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Judgment vacated, and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 4

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellee.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

CAROLYN C. SOEDER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

LESLIE S. GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.