[Cite as Law Offices of Robert E. Soles, Jr., Co., LPA v. Swinderman, 2026-Ohio-730.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. Case No. 2025CA00075 SOLES, JR., CO., LPA Opinion and Judgment Entry Plaintiff - Appellee Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court, -vs- Case No. 2025-CVF-1383
BRADLEY SWINDERMAN Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: March 4, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King, William B. Hoffman, David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: Robert E. Soles, Jr., Kara Dodson, Robert E. Soles, III, Law Offices of Robert E. Soles, Jr., Co., LPA, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Bradley Swinderman, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant OPINION
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bradley Swinderman appeals the June 10, 2025
Judgment Entry entered by the Canton Municipal Court, which denied his motion to
vacate. Plaintiff-appellee is the Law Office of Robert Soles. We affirm the trial court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellee and Appellant entered into an Agreement for Legal Services (“the
Agreement”) on July 26, 2022. Pursuant to the Agreement, Appellee agreed to perform
legal services to defend Appellant in a civil appropriation action; and Appellant agreed to
pay the associated hourly fees for those legal services. Appellee performed the
requested legal services, but Appellant failed to pay.
{¶3} On March 17, 2025, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant, seeking
$12,987.00 for the legal services rendered. The Clerk of the Canton Municipal Court sent
a summons and a copy of the complaint to Appellant via FedEx. Appellant failed to file
an answer. Appellee filed a motion for default judgment on May 5, 2025. On the same
day, Appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Legal Help to Draft Reply Correctly.
Appellant filed a motion in opposition to Appellee’s motion for default judgment on May 6,
2025. On May 7, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Appellant’s motion
for extension of time. The trial court granted default judgment in favor of Appellee via
Judgment Entry/Default Judgment filed May 7, 2025.
{¶4} On May 21, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to vacate. Appellant’s motion is,
in actuality, a letter to the trial court. Therein, Appellant states he never received the
FedEx notices of multiple attempted deliveries and did not open the summons and complaint sent on April 2, 2025, via regular U.S. mail until April 9, 2025. Appellant
explained he contacted the Clerk of Court and was informed he had 28 days from the
postmark date of the summons and complaint, to wit: April 3, 2025. Appellant believed
he had until May 1, 2025, to file an answer. Appellant faxed a partial answer on April 29,
2025, and re-faxed his partial answer on May 1, May 2, and three times on May 3, 2025.
The Clerk of Court advised Appellant his answer was never received. Appellant further
claimed he never received an invoice from Appellee; therefore, was unable to review or
contest the validity of the charges.
{¶5} Appellee filed a response to Appellant’s motion to vacate, asserting
Appellant failed to demonstrate he had a meritorious defense and failed to show
excusable neglect for failing to file a timely answer. Via Judgment Entry filed June 10,
2025, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to vacate without opinion.
{¶6} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals.
{¶7} We begin by noting Appellant's Brief fails to comply with App. R. 16, which
provides:
(A) Brief of the Appellant. The appellant shall include in its brief,
under the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following:
(1) A table of contents, with page references.
(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with
reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected. (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references
to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case,
the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error
presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in
accordance with division (D) of this rule.
(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with
respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons
in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and
parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be
preceded by a summary.
(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
{¶8} Appellant's brief fails to satisfy any of the requirements of App. 16(A);
therefore, the brief is noncompliant. Compliance with the above-stated rule is mandatory.
Zanesville v. Robinson, 2010-Ohio-4843, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.). "It is not the function of this
court to construct a foundation for [an appellant's] claims; failure to comply with the rules
governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal." Musleve v.
Musleve, 2008-Ohio-3961, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.). Such deficiencies permit this Court to dismiss
Appellant's appeal. State v. Darby, 2019-Ohio-2186, ¶¶ 21-24 (5th Dist.). Notwithstanding
the omissions in Appellant's brief, in the interests of justice and finality, we elect to review
the appeal. {¶9} To succeed on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, the movant
must demonstrate: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is
granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1)
through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds
of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or
proceeding was entered or taken. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.,
47 Ohio St.2d 146, 150 (1976). "If any of these three requirements is not met, the motion
should be overruled." Rose Chevrolet v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1988).
{¶10} Under the first prong of the GTE Automatic test, a movant must demonstrate
he has a meritorious defense (or claim) to present if relief is granted. “To show the
existence of a meritorious defense under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant need not establish
ultimate success on the merits.” K. Ronald Bailey & Assocs. Co. v. Martin, 2009-Ohio-
2932, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), citing Nat'l City Bank v. Mulinex, 2005-Ohio-5460, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).
However, “the movant must provide the trial court with operative facts that would
constitute a meritorious defense if found to be true.” (Citation and internal quotations
omitted.) Id. The operative facts must be alleged “with enough specificity to allow the trial
court to decide whether the movant has met that test.” Id., quoting Syphard v. Vrable,
2001-Ohio-3229 (6th Dist.).
{¶11} Appellant failed to show he has a meritorious defense to Appellee’s claim.
In his motion, Appellant argues he never received an invoice from Appellee. However,
Appellant did not present any evidentiary material in support of his motion from which the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Law Offices of Robert E. Soles, Jr., Co., LPA v. Swinderman, 2026-Ohio-730.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. Case No. 2025CA00075 SOLES, JR., CO., LPA Opinion and Judgment Entry Plaintiff - Appellee Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court, -vs- Case No. 2025-CVF-1383
BRADLEY SWINDERMAN Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: March 4, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King, William B. Hoffman, David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: Robert E. Soles, Jr., Kara Dodson, Robert E. Soles, III, Law Offices of Robert E. Soles, Jr., Co., LPA, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Bradley Swinderman, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant OPINION
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bradley Swinderman appeals the June 10, 2025
Judgment Entry entered by the Canton Municipal Court, which denied his motion to
vacate. Plaintiff-appellee is the Law Office of Robert Soles. We affirm the trial court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellee and Appellant entered into an Agreement for Legal Services (“the
Agreement”) on July 26, 2022. Pursuant to the Agreement, Appellee agreed to perform
legal services to defend Appellant in a civil appropriation action; and Appellant agreed to
pay the associated hourly fees for those legal services. Appellee performed the
requested legal services, but Appellant failed to pay.
{¶3} On March 17, 2025, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant, seeking
$12,987.00 for the legal services rendered. The Clerk of the Canton Municipal Court sent
a summons and a copy of the complaint to Appellant via FedEx. Appellant failed to file
an answer. Appellee filed a motion for default judgment on May 5, 2025. On the same
day, Appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Legal Help to Draft Reply Correctly.
Appellant filed a motion in opposition to Appellee’s motion for default judgment on May 6,
2025. On May 7, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry denying Appellant’s motion
for extension of time. The trial court granted default judgment in favor of Appellee via
Judgment Entry/Default Judgment filed May 7, 2025.
{¶4} On May 21, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to vacate. Appellant’s motion is,
in actuality, a letter to the trial court. Therein, Appellant states he never received the
FedEx notices of multiple attempted deliveries and did not open the summons and complaint sent on April 2, 2025, via regular U.S. mail until April 9, 2025. Appellant
explained he contacted the Clerk of Court and was informed he had 28 days from the
postmark date of the summons and complaint, to wit: April 3, 2025. Appellant believed
he had until May 1, 2025, to file an answer. Appellant faxed a partial answer on April 29,
2025, and re-faxed his partial answer on May 1, May 2, and three times on May 3, 2025.
The Clerk of Court advised Appellant his answer was never received. Appellant further
claimed he never received an invoice from Appellee; therefore, was unable to review or
contest the validity of the charges.
{¶5} Appellee filed a response to Appellant’s motion to vacate, asserting
Appellant failed to demonstrate he had a meritorious defense and failed to show
excusable neglect for failing to file a timely answer. Via Judgment Entry filed June 10,
2025, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to vacate without opinion.
{¶6} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals.
{¶7} We begin by noting Appellant's Brief fails to comply with App. R. 16, which
provides:
(A) Brief of the Appellant. The appellant shall include in its brief,
under the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following:
(1) A table of contents, with page references.
(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other
authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.
(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with
reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected. (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references
to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.
(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case,
the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.
(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error
presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in
accordance with division (D) of this rule.
(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with
respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons
in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and
parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be
preceded by a summary.
(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.
{¶8} Appellant's brief fails to satisfy any of the requirements of App. 16(A);
therefore, the brief is noncompliant. Compliance with the above-stated rule is mandatory.
Zanesville v. Robinson, 2010-Ohio-4843, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.). "It is not the function of this
court to construct a foundation for [an appellant's] claims; failure to comply with the rules
governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal." Musleve v.
Musleve, 2008-Ohio-3961, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.). Such deficiencies permit this Court to dismiss
Appellant's appeal. State v. Darby, 2019-Ohio-2186, ¶¶ 21-24 (5th Dist.). Notwithstanding
the omissions in Appellant's brief, in the interests of justice and finality, we elect to review
the appeal. {¶9} To succeed on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, the movant
must demonstrate: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is
granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1)
through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds
of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or
proceeding was entered or taken. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.,
47 Ohio St.2d 146, 150 (1976). "If any of these three requirements is not met, the motion
should be overruled." Rose Chevrolet v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1988).
{¶10} Under the first prong of the GTE Automatic test, a movant must demonstrate
he has a meritorious defense (or claim) to present if relief is granted. “To show the
existence of a meritorious defense under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant need not establish
ultimate success on the merits.” K. Ronald Bailey & Assocs. Co. v. Martin, 2009-Ohio-
2932, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), citing Nat'l City Bank v. Mulinex, 2005-Ohio-5460, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).
However, “the movant must provide the trial court with operative facts that would
constitute a meritorious defense if found to be true.” (Citation and internal quotations
omitted.) Id. The operative facts must be alleged “with enough specificity to allow the trial
court to decide whether the movant has met that test.” Id., quoting Syphard v. Vrable,
2001-Ohio-3229 (6th Dist.).
{¶11} Appellant failed to show he has a meritorious defense to Appellee’s claim.
In his motion, Appellant argues he never received an invoice from Appellee. However,
Appellant did not present any evidentiary material in support of his motion from which the
requisite operative facts supporting relief from judgment could have been ascertained. Appellant did not offer any sworn testimony by way of affidavit or other evidence to
support his position.
{¶12} Under the second prong of the GTE Automatic test, a movant must show
he is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5).
Excusable neglect is the only ground upon which Appellant could arguably show he was
entitled to relief. Excusable neglect has been defined in the negative. Twymon v. Eagle
Auto Parts, Inc., 2022-Ohio-2360, ¶ 51 (8th Dist.). The inaction of a defendant is not
excusable neglect if it can be labeled as a "complete disregard for the judicial system."
Kay v. Marc Glassman, 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20 (1996). Cases finding excusable neglect
typically involve special circumstances which justify the neglect. Dispatch Printing Co. v.
Recovery Ltd. Partnership, 2015-Ohio-1368, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). Neglectful conduct is not
excusable if the party seeking relief could have prevented the circumstances from
occurring. Stuller v. Price, 2003-Ohio-583, ¶ 52 (10th Dist.). While special or unusual
circumstances can justify neglect, if a party "could have controlled or guarded against the
happening of the special or unusual circumstance, the neglect is not excusable." Vanest
v. Pillsbury Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 525 (4th Dist. 1997).
{¶13} We find Appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for not filing an
answer. In his motion, Appellant admitted he was in possession of the summons and
complaint on April 9, 2025. Appellant claimed he made multiple attempts to fax an answer
to the Clerk of Court on April 29, 2025, and May 1, 2, and 3, 2025, but such were never
received. Appellant attached copies of successful job notifications from an HP LaserJet
500 MFP M525 to support his assertion he attempted to fax an answer to the Clerk. However, Appellant failed to offer any sworn testimony to authenticate these pages are
what he purports them to be.
{¶14} Because Appellant did not meet his burden to allege the existence of a
meritorious claim or defense, or any operative facts in support thereof, and because his
failure to answer was not the result of excusable neglect, we find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate.
{¶15} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
By: Hoffman, J.
King, P.J. and
Gormley, J. concur