State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
Opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 464.]
THE STATE EX REL. LINDENSCHMIDT, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BUTLER COUNTY, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 1995-Ohio-49.]
Civil procedure—Court of appeals, in a mandamus action, does not abuse its discretion in granting leave to file an answer after the twenty-eight-day period has expired, when—Court of appeals, in a mandamus action, does not err in granting a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, when.
(No. 94-2385—Submitted May 9, 1995—Decided July 5, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA94-04-098.
{¶ 1} Appellant, David Lindenschmidt, owns real property located on Station Road in Butler County, Ohio. On December 3, 1993, Lindenschmidt filed a petition with appellee, Butler County Board of Commissioners ("board"), to vacate a portion of Station Road. Pursuant to R.C. 5553.04, the board viewed the location of the proposed road vacation and held hearings on Lindenschmidt's petition.
{¶ 2} On March 3, 1994, the board denied the petition. On March 4, 1994, the board sent notice of its decision to Lindenschmidt's attorney by certified mail. On March 4, 1994, Lindenschmidt filed a notice of intention to appeal with the board. On March 23, 1994, the board informed Lindenschmidt that it did not intend to take any action on his appeal because Lindenschmidt failed to provide timely notice of his intention to appeal.
{¶ 3} Lindenschmidt then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Butler County seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to fix a reasonable appeal bond in accordance with R.C. 5563.02. Although the board received a copy
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
of the complaint and summons on April 28, 1994, it failed to file a responsive motion or pleading within the required answer period. On May 31, 1994, Lindenschmidt filed a motion for default judgment. Shortly thereafter, the board filed a motion for additional time to respond to Lindenschmidt's complaint. The motion indicated that the board's request was "due to eye surgery counsel underwent in May, 1994, which necessitated a longer period of recovery than anticipated and, therefore, she was out of the office longer than expected." The court of appeals granted the board's motion for extension of time and denied Lindenschmidt's motion for default judgment.
{¶ 4} The board filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Lindenschmidt's complaint on the basis that it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The board additionally filed an answer. On September 22, 1994, the court of appeals granted the board's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the case.
{¶ 5} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Harry B. Plotnick, for appellant. John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Victoria Daiker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph Wessendarp, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, West Chester/Mason Habitat for Humanity, Inc.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} In his first proposition of law, Lindenschmidt asserts that the court of appeals abused its discretion in granting the board leave to file an answer after the twenty-eight-day period had expired. See Civ.R. 12(A)(1); Loc.R. 20(A) of the Twelfth Appellate District ("An original action *** shall proceed as any civil action under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.").
January Term, 1995
{¶ 7} Civ.R. 6(B)(2) provides that "[w]hen by these rules *** an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion *** upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect[.]"
{¶ 8} A trial court's Civ.R. 6(B)(2) determination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Lint (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 209, 213-214, 16 O.O.3d 244, 247, 404 N.E.2d 752, 754-755; Evans v. Chapman (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 132, 135, 28 OBR 228, 231, 502 N.E.2d 1012, 1015. The term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Rock v. Cabral (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112, 616 N.E.2d 218, 222.
{¶ 9} The court of appeals determined that the board had shown the requisite excusable neglect where its attorney had eye surgery in May 1994, which resulted in her absence from the office for a longer time than expected.
{¶ 10} Lindenschmidt contends that the court of appeals abused its discretion since, based on State ex rel. Weiss v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 470, 605 N.E.2d 37, the office of the board's counsel, the Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, could have easily assigned replacement counsel due to illness of the board's counsel. In Weiss, this court held that administrative confusion did not constitute excusable neglect for purposes of leave to answer under Civ.R. 6(B)(2). A motion to dismiss had been filed by the respondents in Weiss, but after it was overruled, an answer was not timely filed, purportedly because new assistant attorneys general were being assigned to replace the former counsel of record and the assistant attorney general who oversaw the reassignment was not aware of the entry overruling the dismissal motion.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 11} Weiss is distinguishable from the instant case because Weiss was an original action mandamus filed in this court where we were sitting as the trier of fact. Conversely, in this appeal, we must defer to the findings of the court of appeals, and our standard of review is limited to determining whether that court abused its discretion. See Brooks v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. (July 20, 1994), Summit App. No. 16639, unreported, where the court of appeals similarly distinguished Weiss. Further, there is no assertion of administrative confusion on the part of the prosecutor's office here.
{¶ 12} The determination of whether neglect is excusable or inexcusable must take into consideration all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and courts must be mindful of the admonition that cases should be decided on their merits, where possible, rather than procedural grounds. Marion Production Credit Assn. v. Cochran (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 265, 271, 533 N.E.2d 325, 331. Although excusable neglect cannot be defined in the abstract, the test for excusable neglect under Civ.R. 6(B)(2) is less stringent than that applied under Civ.R. 60(B). See 1 Klein, Browne & Murtaugh, Baldwin's Ohio Civil Practice (1988) 133, Section T 21.16; Jenkins v. Clark (App.1983), 13 OBR 146, 149.
{¶ 13} In considering all the facts and circumstances presented to the court of appeals, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the board's counsel's eye surgery, which necessitated a longer than anticipated period of recovery, constituted excusable neglect which resulted in the board's failure to file a timely responsive pleading. Cf. Greene v. U.S. Dept. of Army (D.Kan. 1993), 149 F.R.D. 206, 208 ("The law is well-settled that simple attorney neglect or inadvertence, without the presence of substantial extenuating factors, such as sudden illness or natural disaster, cannot constitute the sole basis for a [Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j)] 'good cause' determination."). Appellant's first proposition of law is overruled.
January Term, 1995
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1995 Ohio 49 (State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.