Nemec v. Morledge

2025 Ohio 4752

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 114664 & 114744
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Nemec v. Morledge, 2025-Ohio-4752.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CAROLYN F. NEMEC, M.D., :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : Nos. 114664 and 114744 v. :

THOMAS MORLEDGE, M.D., ET AL., :

Defendants-Appellees. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 16, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-20-931335

Appearances:

Law Office of J. Michael Goldberg LLC and J. Michael Goldberg, for appellant.

Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Adam D. Fuller, and Elizabeth Shively Boatwright, for appellees.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

This appeal arises from an employment dispute between appellant

Carolyn F. Nemec, M.D. (“Nemec”) and appellees Thomas Morledge, M.D. (“Morledge”) and RIM Associates, LLC (“RIM Associates”). The relationship

between the parties is governed by an employment agreement containing an

arbitration provision. Thus, the substantive issues between the parties were

arbitrated during 2023. After the arbitrator issued a decision and final revised

award, each party took the procedural steps under R.C. Ch. 2711 to either vacate or

confirm the arbitration award in the trial court. The result of these procedural

actions provide the basis for this appeal. Specifically, Nemec asserts the following

assignments of error for our review:

(1) The trial court committed reversible error by reducing a sham arbitration award to judgment in a special statutory proceeding invoked by the filing of a Motion to Vacate that the court failed to acknowledge, consider, or rule upon.

(2) The trial court committed reversible error by failing to consider and rule on appellant’s motion for an order directing the Clerk of Courts, as a ministerial officer of the court, to indorse the date of filing on appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.

The pivotal issue underlying this appeal is whether Nemec’s motion

to vacate the arbitration award was timely filed with the trial court and, more

specifically, whether the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts (“clerk of courts”) had the

authority to reject for filing her motion to vacate solely on the basis that she failed

to list the first named defendant from the complaint in the motion’s case caption as

required by Cuyahoga C.P. Gen.Div. Loc.R. 8(A)(3). Based on our review of relevant

legal precedent and court rules, we conclude that the clerk of courts did not have the

authority to reject for filing Nemec’s motion to vacate because there was no specific

court rule or law permitting it to reject a filing for that reason. We further conclude that Nemec’s motion to vacate was filed timely and should have been properly before

the trial court prior to RIM Associates’ filing of its application to confirm the

arbitration award.

Therefore, based on the record in this case, we find that the trial court

erred in denying Nemec’s “Motion for an order to the clerk of courts directing the

clerk to comply with its mandatory, nondiscretionary duty under R.C. 2303.10 to

indorse 27 October 2023 as the date of filing on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate

arbitration award.” Because Nemec’s motion to vacate was properly before it, the

trial court also erred in granting RIM Associates’ application to confirm the

arbitration award under R.C. 2711.09 without first resolving the merits of the

pending motion to vacate. Additionally, Nemec’s filing of her notice of appeal

deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to subsequently reduce the arbitration award

to judgment and, therefore, that entry is void.

Nemec’s assignments of error are sustained. This matter is dismissed

in part, reversed in part, and remanded back to the trial court for proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

I. Statement of Facts and Procedural Posture

A. Background Facts

Nemec and Morledge are both primary care doctors. RIM Associates,

operating under the trade name Revati Wellness, is a “concierge” medical practice.

A concierge medical practice allows patients to pay a monthly or annual fee in exchange for immediate access to a primary care doctor. Morledge is a member of

RIM Associates.

In March 2018, Nemec entered into an employment contract with

RIM Associates, which was executed by Morledge. Under the contract, Nemec

would provide care to patients as part of RIM Associates. Nemec commenced her

employment in April 2018 and was terminated by appellees in November 2019.

During her employment, however, several disputes arose as to how appellees

calculated Nemec’s compensation under the contract.

B. Procedural History — Pre-Arbitration

In March 2020, Nemec filed a complaint against Morledge and RIM

Associates asserting breach of contract, bad faith, and defamation, among other

claims. The allegations of Nemec’s complaint primarily arose from her contentions

that appellees did not properly compensate her according to the terms of their

agreement as well as from the manner in which she was terminated by them.

Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, appellees filed a

motion to compel arbitration in July 202o. The trial court granted appellees’

motion. Nemec filed a notice of appeal with this court challenging the trial court’s

order compelling the parties to arbitrate. We affirmed the trial court’s decision in

September 2021. Nemec v. Morledge, 2021-Ohio-3361 (8th Dist.). As a result, the

parties proceeded to arbitration to resolve the substantive claims between them. C. Arbitration

On July 27, 2023, the arbitrator issued a final revised arbitration

award. The award resolved all claims asserted and against all parties.1 The award

found in favor of Nemec for business and professional expenses in the amount of

$6,292.33. The award, however, also found in favor of RIM Associates in the

amount of $17,022.98 for attorney fees and costs it incurred as the result of Nemec’s

breach of the employment agreement’s arbitration provision. Accordingly, Nemec

was ordered to pay a total of $10,730.65 to RIM Associates.

D. Procedural History — Post-Arbitration

On Friday evening, October 27, 2023, Nemec electronically submitted

two documents for filing with the clerk of courts: a notice of filing of a motion to

vacate arbitration award and a motion to vacate arbitration award. Nemec received

electronic confirmation that both documents were received by the clerk of courts.

Because it was after normal business hours, Nemec did not receive electronic

confirmation that these documents were accepted for filing by the clerk of courts at

that time. Concurrently, Nemec electronically served copies of these two documents

upon opposing counsel.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023, Nemec received electronic

confirmation from the clerk of courts that her notice of filing a motion to vacate

arbitration award was accepted for filing. However, on Monday, October 30, 2023,

1 The final arbitration award found Morledge not liable for defamation. Nemec received an electronic message from the clerk of courts informing her that

her motion to vacate had been rejected for filing because the “defendants do not

match.” Upon review, Nemec discovered that she had listed RIM Associates as the

defendant in the case caption rather than Morledge who had been named as the first

defendant in the original complaint. On November 1, 2023, Nemec filed a motion

for an order directing the clerk of courts to indorse and docket her motion to vacate

as filed on October 27, 2023.

In turn, on November 2, 2023, RIM Associates filed an application to

confirm the arbitration award. Thereafter, RIM Associates also filed an opposition

to Nemec’s motion for order directing the clerk of courts to accept for filing her

motion to vacate. Nemec requested a stay of the proceedings with regard to RIM

Associates’ application to confirm arbitration award, and RIM Associates opposed

the requested stay.

A year later, on November 14, 2024, the trial court issued the

following orders:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for an order to the clerk of courts directing the clerk to comply with its mandatory, non discretionary duty under RC section 2303.10 to indorse 27 October 2023 as the date of filing on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award, filed November 1, 2023, is denied as moot.

(2) Defendant’s application for order confirming arbitration award, filed November 2, 2023, is granted.

(3) Plaintiff’s motion for an order staying the proceedings on defendants’ application to enforce arbitration award, filed on November 16, 2023, is denied. On December 16, 2024, Nemec filed a notice of appeal challenging

these orders. Thereafter, on December 17, 2024, the trial court entered an order

reducing the arbitration award to judgment. On January 13, 2025, Nemec filed a

notice of appeal challenging the December 17, 2024 order as well.

E. Appellate Posture

On January 24, 2025, this court consolidated the two pending

appeals. On July 10, 2025, this court ordered the parties to submit briefing

addressing whether this matter presented a final appealable order because it was

unclear whether the claims against Morledge had been resolved in the arbitration.

The court also requested the parties to address the transfer-of-jurisdiction principle

as it applies to the trial court’s December 17, 2024 judgment entry reducing the

arbitration award to judgment, which was filed after Nemec filed her first notice of

appeal. In August 2025, the parties were also directed to submit additional briefing

regarding the legal implications, if any, of Cuyahoga C.P. Gen.Div. Loc.R. 8(A)(9) on

this matter.

Upon review of the parties’ jurisdictional briefing, this court is

satisfied that there is a final appealable order presented for our review and,

specifically, that the arbitration award resolved all claims against Morledge. As to

the trial court’s December 17, 2024 judgment entry, the court finds that as a result

of the filing of Nemec’s notice of appeal on December 16, 2024, the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to enter this order and, as discussed further below, it is void. II. Law and Analysis

A. Assignment of Error No. 1

The trial court committed reversible error by reducing a sham arbitration award to judgment in a special statutory proceeding invoked by the filing of a Motion to Vacate that the court failed to acknowledge, consider, or rule upon.

On its face, assignment of error No. 1 challenges the trial court’s

December 17, 2024 entry reducing the arbitration award to judgment. While both

parties’ arguments hereunder address issues relevant to assignment of error No. 2

(and discussed below), we sustain this assignment of error because the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to reduce the arbitration award to judgment after Nemec filed

her notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s November 14, 2024 orders.

Therefore, this order is void.

It is a well-established principle that “[w]hen a notice of appeal is

filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction except to take action in aid of the

appeal.” State v. Drake, 2017-Ohio-7328, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Special

Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97 (1978).

Further, the trial court will only retain jurisdiction over issues “‘not inconsistent

with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment

from which an appeal is taken.’” Id., quoting, in part, Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.,

51 Ohio St.3d 43, 44 (1990). Issues considered “not inconsistent” with appellate

jurisdiction include “collateral issues like contempt, appointment of a receiver and

injunction.” State ex rel. Special Prosecutors at 97, citing In re Kurtzhalz, 141 Ohio St. 432, 435-436 (1943); Goode v. Wiggins, 12 Ohio St. 341, 347 (1861); Fawick

Airflex Co. v. United Elec. Radio & Machine Workers, 90 Ohio App. 24 (8th Dist.

1951).

“Where the trial court enters an order without jurisdiction, its order

is void and a nullity.” State v. Abboud, 2006-Ohio-6587, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State

v. Taogaga, 2002-Ohio-5062, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). “It is axiomatic that plaintiffs

cannot appeal from a void judgment.” In re G.C., 2021-Ohio-2442, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.),

quoting City Friends v. Kuhlman, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 4988, *4 (8th Dist. Oct. 17,

1991). Because no appeal lies from a void judgment, an appeal based on a void

judgment is properly dismissed. Id., citing Kornick v. Zomparelli, 1988 Ohio App.

LEXIS 896, *3 (8th Dist. Mar. 17, 1988).

On December 16, 2024, Nemec filed her notice of appeal challenging

the trial court’s trio of orders issued on November 14, 2024. Thus, the trial court

lost jurisdiction to take any action in this matter inconsistent with this court’s

authority to reverse, modify, or affirm these orders on that day. Consequently, the

trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order reducing the arbitration award to

judgment on December 17, 2024. This order is in direct conflict with our ability to

reverse or modify the trial court’s November 14, 2024 orders. Therefore, the trial

court’s judgment entry is void. Assignment of error No. 1 is sustained, the trial

court’s December 17, 2024 order is void, and 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 114744 is

dismissed. B. Assignment of Error No. 2

The trial court committed reversible error by failing to consider and rule on appellant’s motion for an order directing the Clerk of Courts, as a ministerial officer of the court, to indorse the date of filing on appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Nemec’s second assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred

in failing to consider and rule on her motion for an order directing the clerk of courts

to indorse October 27, 2023, as the date of filing of her motion to vacate.

Specifically, Nemec argues that the clerk of courts did not have the authority to reject

for filing her motion to vacate and, further, that her motion was timely filed. Thus,

Nemec argues that the trial court should have granted her motion and resolved the

merits of her motion to vacate prior to determining RIM Associates’ application to

confirm the arbitration award. As a result, Nemec contends the trial court also erred

in confirming the arbitration award as well as refusing to stay the proceedings.

In turn, appellees argue that the clerk of courts properly rejected her

filing because Nemec identified the wrong defendant in the case caption in violation

of Cuyahoga C.P. Gen.Div. Loc.R. 8(A)(3) and 39. Appellees further argue that

Nemec’s alleged filing is untimely. Thus, according to appellees, the trial court

properly confirmed the application for confirmation of the arbitration award and

denied the motion to stay because there was no pending motion to vacate.

For the following reasons, we sustain Nemec’s second assignment of

error.

1. The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Consider and Rule on Nemec’s Motion for an Order Directing the Clerk of Courts