Potomac Ins. Co. v. Zehr, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2003)
This text of Potomac Ins. Co. v. Zehr, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2003) (Potomac Ins. Co. v. Zehr, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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} The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. On April 29, 2002, Potomac filed a complaint for declaratory judgment naming appellant, Bernice Zehr, administrator of the estate of Daniel Whitely, as defendant. On June 3, 2002, appellant filed a "motion to change venue, stay the proceedings or, in the alternative, dismiss plaintiffs' complaint." Potomac filed a brief in opposition. On September 3, 2002, the court denied appellant's "motion to change venue, stay the proceedings or, in the alternative, dismiss plaintiffs' complaint." On November 22, 2002, Potomac filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted a default judgment to Potomac three days later on November 25, 2002. Appellant now appeals setting forth the following assignments of error:
{¶ 3} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING NOTICE OF HEARING TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AS REQUIRED BY CIVIL RULE 55(A).
{¶ 4} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT."
{¶ 5} Generally, the law disfavors default judgments. Suki v.Blume (1983),
{¶ 6} Ohio courts, in construing the notice provisions of Civ.R. 55(A), have liberally interpreted the term "appeared." See, e.g., Bainesv. Harwood (1993),
{¶ 7} The Tenth District Court of Appeals has held that: "[T]he filing of a motion for a change of venue constitutes an `appear[ance]' for purposes of Civ.R. 55(A)." BancOhio Natl. Bank v. Mager (1988),
{¶ 8} On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has not been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Williams County Common Pleas Court is reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. Costs assessed to appellee.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J., Judith Ann Lanzinger, J., and Arlene Singer,J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Potomac Ins. Co. v. Zehr, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2003), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potomac-ins-co-v-zehr-unpublished-decision-7-11-2003-ohioctapp-2003.