Rennell v. Rennell

2024 Ohio 2454, 252 N.E.3d 537
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 27, 2024
Docket113256
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 Ohio 2454 (Rennell v. Rennell) 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.

Bluebook
Rennell v. Rennell, 2024 Ohio 2454, 252 N.E.3d 537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

[Cite as Rennell v. Rennell, 2024-Ohio-2454.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

ANDREW W. RENNELL, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113256 v. :

SUSAN L. RENNELL, ET AL., :

Defendants-Appellees. :

[Appeal by Joseph Bancsi, : Intervenor-Appellant]

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 27, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-19-379000

Appearances:

Joseph Bancsi, pro se.

Rosenthal | Lane, L.L.C., and James L. Lane, for appellee Susan L. Rennell.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

Joseph Bancsi (“Bancsi”) appeals from the domestic relations court’s

judgment entry denying his motion to intervene and its judgment entry striking his brief in opposition to motion for sanctions. After reviewing the facts of the case and

pertinent law, we affirm the lower court’s judgment in part and dismiss this appeal

in part for lack of a final appealable order.

The dispute in this appeal stems from a divorce case filed in October

2019. On May 16, 2022, Bancsi filed a “notice of limited appearance of additional

counsel for plaintiff.” Bancsi filed additional motions, briefs, and notices1 in the trial

court in May 2022, June 2022, July 2022, August 2022, December 2022, and

January 2023.

On January 27, 2023, defendant filed a motion for sanctions against

Bancsi. Bancsi filed a brief in opposition to the motion for sanctions on August 2,

2023, which is approximately six months after the motion for sanctions was filed.

That same day, August 2, 2023, Bancsi filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of

record for the plaintiff. On August 3, 2023, the court issued a journal entry ordering

Bancsi released as attorney of record for the plaintiff.

On August 4, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to strike Bancsi’s

brief in opposition to motion for sanctions, which the court granted on August 8,

2023, finding that the brief in opposition was untimely.

1 On September 5, 2022, Bancsi filed a notice of appeal in this court.See Rennell v. Rennell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111941. This case was stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings, and on August 2, 2023, Bancsi filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel, which this court granted the same day. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on December 1, 2023, for failure to file an appellate brief. On September 7, 2023, Bancsi filed a motion to intervene in the trial

court “to protect his interests and defend against the unwarranted filing by

Defendant . . . of a Motion for Sanctions . . . against” him. The court denied this

motion on September 13, 2023.

It is from these orders that Bancsi appeals, raising four assignments

of error for our review.

I. The trial court committed reversible error as a matter of law when it granted the motion to strike of appellee and struck the brief of appellant in opposition to the motion of appellee for sanctions upon the ground of untimeliness and denied appellant due process of law.

II. The trial court committed reversible error as a matter of law when (1) it ruled upon and granted motion of appellee to strike brief of appellant. And when (2) [it] ruled upon and denied motion of appellant to intervene since the trial court . . . was not assigned by []random selection and she should have recused herself from the case and now should be disqualified.

III. The trial court committed reversible error as a matter of law when it ruled upon and denied motion to intervene of appellant after the trial court received notice of decision of the Supreme Court dated August 18, 2023, in case No. 23-AP-070, entitled, In Re Disqualification of Hon. Leslie Ann Celebrezze ruling that a Judge [who] is not randomly assigned to a case is disqualified to preside over the case.

IV. The trial court committed reversible error as a matter of law when it denied appellant’s motion to intervene and abused its discretion, upon the ground of untimeliness denying appellant due process of law.

Because Bancsi’s assignments of error are interrelated, we review

them together. We note that Bancsi challenges two court orders in his four assignments of error: whether the court erred by granting defendant’s motion to

strike and whether the court erred by denying his motion to intervene.2

I. Motion to Strike Brief in Opposition

As a preliminary issue, we must determine whether the trial court’s

journal entry granting the defendant’s motion to strike Bancsi’s brief in opposition

to the motion for sanctions against him is a final appealable order. “It is well-

established that an order must be final before it can be reviewed by an appellate

court. If an order is not final, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction.” Gen. Acc.

Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).

This court reviewed the issue of whether a journal entry granting a

motion to strike is a final appealable order in Smith v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-990, ¶ 11

(8th Dist.):

In Grahl v. Matthews, 172 Ohio St. 135, 136, 174 N.E.2d 100 (1961), the Ohio Supreme Court held the following: “The sustaining of the motion to strike . . . leaves the cause still pending in the trial court. The order of the trial court, considering the motion to strike . . . and sustaining it, is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken.” See also George H. Ritz, Jr., Ph. D., Inc. v. Lefton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 36722, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 8542 (Dec. 8, 1977) (court’s granting motion to strike not a final appealable order; “[a]s plaintiff’s action remains to be resolved, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal . . . .”).

2 To the extent that Bancsi raises the issue of recusal or disqualification of the trial

judge in his appellate brief, we find that this issue was not properly before the trial court nor did the trial court rule on this issue. See State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496, 501 (1996) (“A court of appeals cannot consider [an] issue for the first time without the trial court having had an opportunity to address the issue.”). Upon review, we find that the trial court’s journal entry granting the

defendant’s motion to strike is not a final appealable order, and we cannot consider

the merits of Bancsi’s arguments concerning this issue.

II. Motion to Intervene

We review a court’s ruling on a motion to intervene pursuant to

Civ.R. 24(A) for an abuse of discretion. See Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland v. Lynch,

2002-Ohio-3748, ¶ 47. An abuse of discretion “connotes more than an error of law

or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or

unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). Trial

“courts lack the discretion to make errors of law, particularly when the trial court’s

decision goes against the plain language of a statute or rule.” Johnson v. Abdullah,

2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 39.

Civ.R. 24(A) governs intervention of right, and it states as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 3304 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2021)
Blakemore v. Blakemore
450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)
General Accident Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America
540 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Peagler
668 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch
2002 Ohio 3748 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 Ohio 2454, 252 N.E.3d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rennell-v-rennell-ohioctapp-2024.