L.W. v. A.B.

2024 Ohio 3109

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 15, 2024
• Docket: 113397
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as L.W. v. A.B., 2024-Ohio-3109.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

L.W., :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113397 v. :

A.B., :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 15, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-19-912149

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant A.B. appeals the trial court’s decision sua sponte

vacating his expungement order. We affirm the trial court’s decision because the trial court’s original order granting A.B.’s motion to seal court records of a civil

protection order was granted in error.

{¶2} On October 19, 2023, the trial court orally pronounced that it granted

A.B.’s motion to seal his records of a civil protection stalking order but did not issue

a written journal entry. On October 24, 2023, the State opposed A.B.’s motion, and

on October 25, 2023, the trial court vacated its oral pronouncement granting A.B.’s

motion and stated that A.B. “failed to provide proof of unusual and exceptional

circumstances,” citing Schussheim v. Schussheim, 2013-Ohio-4529. Journal

Entry No. 162770198 (Oct. 25, 2023).

{¶3} A.B. filed an appeal, assigning one error for our review:

The trial court erred in sua sponte vacating its valid expungement entry.

Law and Analysis

{¶4} In A.B.’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to vacate its own order. On October 4, 2023, A.B. filed a motion to seal

court records of a civil protection order. On October 19, 2023, the trial court

granted the motion and stated that the journal entry would follow. However, on

October 24, 2023, the State opposed A.B.’s motion. On October 25, 2023, the trial

court then vacated its original October 19 decision and denied A.B.’s motion. L.W.,

the victim in this case, did not file an opposition to A.B.’s motion. {¶5} The trial court has the authority to sua sponte vacate its order if the

order was void. Mayfield Hts. v. N.K., 2010-Ohio-909, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). If the order

is voidable, then the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate it absent a Civ.R. 60(B)

motion. We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to seal a conviction for an

abuse of discretion. State v. A.K.H., 2023-Ohio-220, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). An abuse of

discretion occurs if the court’s attitude in reaching its decision was arbitrary,

unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219

(1983). An abuse of discretion occurs if a court exercises its judgment in an

unwarranted way regarding a matter over which it has discretionary authority.

Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.

{¶6} “As a general rule, a trial court has no authority to sua sponte vacate or

modify its final orders.” Maxwell v. Univ. Hosps. Health Sys., 2016-Ohio-7401,

¶ 5 (8th Dist.), citing Dickerson v. Cleveland Metro. Hous. Auth., 2011-Ohio-6437,

¶ 7 (8th Dist.), citing N. Shore Auto Financing, Inc. v. Valentine, 2008-Ohio-4611,

¶ 12 (8th Dist.). “A trial court may only relieve a party from judgment by the

mechanisms provided by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id., citing Allstate

Ins. Co. v. Witta, 2011-Ohio-6068, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.), citing Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of

Transp., 67 Ohio St. 2d 378, 380 (1981). “Other than upon a motion pursuant to

Civ.R. 50(B) (motion notwithstanding the verdict), Civ.R. 59 (motion for a new

trial) and Civ.R. 60(B) (motion for relief from judgment) filed by a party, a clerical

error, or a void order for want of jurisdiction, ‘a trial court has no authority to vacate a final judgment.’” Id., citing N.K. at ¶ 301; Witta at ¶ 8, citing Pitts at 380.

“In a case such as this, where there was no trial, Civ.R. 60 provides the exclusive

grounds in order for a court to vacate its own judgment.” Id., citing Witta at ¶ 12

and Miamisburg Motel v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 88 Ohio App.3d 117, 122-123

(2d Dist. 1993).

{¶7} The appellee in this case did not file a Civ.R. 60(B) motion arguing that

the trial court made a mistake. However, the trial court did not issue a written

journal entry reflecting its decision. “It is well-established that a court speaks only

through its journal entries and not by oral pronouncement or through decisions.”

State v. Smith, 2010-Ohio-1721, ¶ 59 (12th Dist.). See also Schenley v. Kauth, 160

Ohio St. 109 (1953). “Without a journal entry, a decision or finding of a court has

no force or effect.” Id., citing State v. Ronan, 2007-Ohio-168, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.).

State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas, 2003-Ohio-857, ¶ 5 (recognizing “any oral

pronouncements by [the trial court judge] were subject to revision before

journalization”).

{¶8} Because the trial court made an oral pronouncement and did not issue

a written journal entry, its original decision granting A.B.’s expungement has no

force or effect. The trial court had the authority to sua sponte vacate its original

pronouncement and deny A.B.’s motion.

{¶9} Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

__________________________ ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR