Jacobs v. Jacobs, Unpublished Decision (9-7-2000)
This text of Jacobs v. Jacobs, Unpublished Decision (9-7-2000) (Jacobs v. Jacobs, Unpublished Decision (9-7-2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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
I THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO ADD A NECESSARY PARTY INSTEAD OF ORDERING THE PARTY ADDED TO THE INSTANT CASE.
The matter was easily remedied as noted by the trial court in its judgment entry of May 9, 2000: On the date of the assigned Final Pre-Trial, March 6, 2000, a discussion of the above issues was held with the Court and counsel in chambers. The counsel agreed that Helen Jacobs needed to be added as a party before the Court can properly proceed. The Court indicated it would be appointing a Guardian Ad Litem and attorney to represent Mrs. Jacobs' interests. The Plaintiff was given two options: either dismiss voluntarily, without prejudice, or the Court would enter a Dismissal for Failure to Join Indispensable Party. The Plaintiff would then re-file, and the Court indicated to counsel the new case would be given scheduling priority, and would be heard before the end of 2000. The Trial date of March 28, 2000 was vacated.
The Court received the Supplemental Memorandum of Plaintiff on the Dismissal for failure to join a necessary party, and a further telephone conference was conducted between the Court and counsel on April 25, 2000. The concern expressed by counsel for Plaintiff is that either form of dismissal under consideration might jeopardize the Plaintiff's ability to refile yet another action, at some time in the future, on these same facts.
The Court indicated that that potential concern is not sufficient grounds to overrule the Motion to Dismiss. This is already one of the oldest cases on the docket. The parties could or should have added the new party long before now (her interest has been well known to her sons' counsel from the outset — this is not the result of newly discovered information).
Although we understand the trial court's concern for docket control and its frustration with the issue not being addressed during the two years this matter was pending, we nonetheless find the spirit of the rules required a denial of the motion. We are guided in this determination by the fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio that courts should decide cases on their merits. DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1982),
By: FARMER, J., GWIN, P.J. and WISE, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jacobs v. Jacobs, Unpublished Decision (9-7-2000), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-jacobs-unpublished-decision-9-7-2000-ohioctapp-2000.