Hsing v. Shu, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2005)
This text of 2005 Ohio 3047 (Hsing v. Shu, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.
Opinion
{¶ 2} On February 26, 1999, appellant, Yoan Hao Hsing filed a complaint against appellees Wash Master, Inc., SS Supply and Machinery Inc., Oh Cung Soo and, Yon S. Choe. Appellant alleged breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with a real estate transaction involving property at 4859 Douglas Road in Toledo, Ohio.
{¶ 3} On December 6, 1999, appellant filed a motion for default judgment against all appellees for failure to plead or otherwise defend in accordance with the court's order. On October 5, 2004, the trial court granted appellant's motion with respect to appellees Wash Master, Inc., SS Supply and Machinery Inc. and, Oh Chung Soo. The court denied the motion with respect to Yon S. Choe. However, in the same judgment entry, the court granted Choe a dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction. It is from this judgment entry that appellant now appeals.
{¶ 4} For an order to be final and appealable pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} "An order, judgment entry or other journal entry which grants a default judgment as to liability only and leaves the matter of damages for later adjudication is not a final appealable order." Lindsey v.Rumpke (Nov. 16, 2000), 10th Dist. No. 00AP-426, citing Catanzarite Cov. Roof (1983),
{¶ 6} In the present case, the trial court's judgment entry granting default judgment to appellant contains no determination of damages. Appellant was essentially granted a default judgment on the issue of liability only. Accordingly, we find that that the trial court's October 5, 2004 judgment entry is not a final, appealable order and we hereby dismiss appellant's appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. Costs assessed to appellant in accordance with App.R. 24.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Handwork, J., Singer, P.J., Parish, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 Ohio 3047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsing-v-shu-unpublished-decision-6-17-2005-ohioctapp-2005.