U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Campbell

2024 Ohio 1774

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 10, 2024
• Docket: C-230366
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Campbell, 2024-Ohio-1774.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : APPEAL NO. C-230366 as successor by merger to Firstar Bank, TRIAL NO. A-1703036 National Association, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N.

vs. :

BARCLAY CAMPBELL, a.k.a. C. : BARCLAY CAMPBELL, : Defendant-Appellant, : and

DONNA H. CAMPBELL, et al., :

Defendants. :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 10, 2024

Manley Deas Kochalski LLC and Matthew J. Richardson, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Barclay Campbell, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Judge.

{¶1} This appeal concerns a foreclosure action filed by plaintiff-appellee U.S.

Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) against defendant-appellant Barclay

Campbell. U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action has been delayed by Campbell’s bankruptcy

filings. After U.S. Bank attempted to resume the case after the resolution of Campbell’s

bankruptcy proceedings, Campbell filed this appeal from the trial court’s orders

restoring the case to the active docket and denying Campbell’s motion to set aside the

court’s entry on U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

{¶2} U.S. Bank filed its foreclosure action against Campbell and his wife in

2017.1 The magistrate entered a decision on summary judgment in favor of the bank

in March 2018. Campbell filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court

overruled Campbell’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision in May 2018.

Campbell appealed the court’s judgment, and this court dismissed the appeal for lack

of a final, appealable order.

{¶3} Subsequent proceedings in this case were interrupted by the automatic

stays when Campbell filed for bankruptcy in 2018, 2019, and 2022. See 11 U.S.C.

362(a). U.S. Bank filed a motion to reinstate the case to the active docket in September

2022. Campbell objected, but the court restored the case to the active docket and

resumed proceedings. In response, Campbell filed this appeal.

{¶4} As an appellate court, we are constrained to review only the “judgments

or final orders” of lower courts. 255 Fifth St. Holdings LLC v. Chemed Sislin, LLC, 1st

1 In its complaint, U.S. Bank named Barclay Campbell, Donna H. Campbell (individually and as

trustee), and the Ohio Department of Taxation as defendants. However, Barclay Campbell is the only defendant participating in this appeal.

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Dist. Hamilton No. C-200083, 2020-Ohio-5248, ¶ 4, quoting B&J Elec. Co. v.

Cincinnati, 2020-Ohio-3869, 156 N.E.3d 974, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.). Where the lower court

has not entered a judgment or final order that is a proper subject of appeal, this court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. Alexander v. LJF

Mgt., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090091, 2010-Ohio-2763, ¶ 16.

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Campbell argues that the trial court

erred in granting U.S. Bank’s motion to reinstate this case to the trial court’s active

docket based on the doctrine of laches. However, an order reactivating a case following

a stay is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 because “it does not affect a

substantial right or determine the action.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v.

Hudson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0049, 2017-Ohio-337, ¶ 19; Huntington

Natl. Bank v. Lewis, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-320, 2006-Ohio-5749, ¶ 4.

Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to consider Campbell’s first assignment of

error. See JPMorgan Chase Bank at ¶ 19.

{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Campbell argues that the trial court

erred by denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the court’s May 2, 2018 entry

denying his objections to the magistrate’s decision. U.S. Bank argues that the appeal

should be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. We agree. Although a trial

court’s decision on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is ordinarily a final order subject to appeal,

“the denial of a motion to vacate an entry that was not a final order is not a final,

appealable order.” Hillgrove v. Hillgrove, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220150,

2023-Ohio-198, ¶ 8.

{¶7} We previously determined that the court’s May 2, 2018 entry was not a

final order when we dismissed Campbell’s previous appeal. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v.

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Campbell, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180303 (Nov. 20, 2019). To provide clarity for the

parties, we explain now what we did not explain in our 2019 dismissal of Campbell’s

previous appeal.

{¶8} Under Civ.R. 53(D)(4), “[a] magistrate’s decision remains interlocutory

until a trial court (1) rules on any objections, (2) adopts, modifies, or rejects the

magistrate’s decision, and (3) enters a judgment that determines all the claims for

relief.” 255 Fifth St. Holdings, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200083, 2020-Ohio-5248, at

¶ 5. To satisfy the third requirement, the trial court’s entry must “clearly and finally

dispose[] of the dispute between the parties.” Millies v. Millies, 47 Ohio St.2d 43, 44,

350 N.E.2d 675 (1976), fn. 2. In order for an appellate court to exercise appellate

jurisdiction over the matter, the judgment entry must contain “a statement of the relief

to which the parties are entitled” and must be “definite enough to be susceptible to

further enforcement and provide sufficient information to enable the parties to

understand the outcome of the case.” Harkai v. Scherba Industries, Inc., 136 Ohio

App.3d 211, 216 and 219, 736 N.E.2d 101 (9th Dist.2000). See Alexander, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-090091, 2010-Ohio-2763, at ¶ 13 (applying Harkai); 255 Fifth St.

Holdings at ¶ 5 (applying Alexander).

{¶9} The trial court’s May 2, 2018 entry overrules Campbell’s objections and

adopts the magistrate’s decision. However, that entry does not enter a judgment

containing “a statement of the relief to which the parties are entitled,” nor is the entry

“definite enough to be susceptible to further enforcement and provide sufficient

information to enable the parties to understand the outcome of the case.” See Harkai

at 216 and 219. As a result, the trial court’s May 2, 2018 entry is not a final order which

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

may be appealed.2

{¶10} Because Campbell’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion did not seek to set aside a final

order, the trial court’s decision on Campbell’s motion is not a final, appealable order.

We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Campbell’s second assignment of error.

{¶11} Because there is no final, appealable order in this case, this appeal must

be and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

BERGERON, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

2 Although U.S. Bank has argued in this appeal that the May 2, 2018 entry is not a final order, the

record shows that U.S. Bank has repeatedly filed praecipes with the clerk of courts requesting an order of sale, attaching the May 2, 2018 entry as a final judgment of foreclosure. As U.S. Bank has pointed out in this case, and we have now reiterated, we determined in the prior appeal that the May 2, 2018 entry is not a final order.