Smith v. SOCI Petroleum, Inc. , 2023 Ohio 907 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Smith v. SOCI Petroleum, Inc., 2023-Ohio-907.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
BRIAN D. SMITH, : APPEAL NO. C-220245
TRIAL NO. A-1504181
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
VS. : O P I N I O N.
SOCI PETROLEUM, INC., :
Defendant, :
and :
JOHN LOGUE, ADMINISTRATOR OF :
THE OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 22, 2023
Nager, Romaine & Schneiberg Co. L.P.A., and C. Bradley Howenstein, for Plaintiff-
Appellant,
David Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Barbara L. Barber, Assistant Attorney
General, for Defendant-Appellee.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
WINKLER, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Brian D. Smith appeals the judgment of the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas that denied his Civ.R. 60(B) motion without
addressing the merits because it found jurisdiction lacking. Because the trial court had
jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
II. Background Facts and Procedure
{¶2} This is the second appeal in this case involving Smith’s claim filed with
the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) to participate in the Ohio
workers’ compensation fund for a workplace injury. Smith prevailed administratively
on that claim. Subsequently, pursuant to R.C. 4123.512, Smith’s employer, Soci
Petroleum, Inc., (“SOCI”) filed a workers’ compensation appeal in the court of
common pleas that began a workers’ compensation judicial action. Within 30 days
after a notice of appeal is filed, the claimant in a workers’ compensation judicial action
has an affirmative duty to file a petition containing a statement of facts demonstrating
a claim to participate in the workers’ compensation fund. R.C. 4123.512(D). The
claimant also bears the burden of proving his right to participate in the workers’
compensation fund by a preponderance of the evidence regardless of the
administrative decision. Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 134 Ohio
St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-5639, 982 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 17.
{¶3} SOCI moved for dismissal of the workers’ compensation judicial action
for failure to prosecute. The trial court granted that motion on April 20, 2016. Though
that April 2016 judgment was a final order, Smith moved for “reconsideration” and
filed an affidavit in support. SOCI and BWC filed a memorandum opposing
reconsideration and affidavits in support of the dismissal.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶4} Before the trial court ruled on the “motion for reconsideration,” Smith
appealed the trial court’s April 2016 judgment to this court. See Smith v. SOCI
Petroleum, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160477, 2017-Ohio-7224 (“Smith I”). About
a month after perfecting his appeal, Smith filed in the trial court a Civ.R. 60(B) motion
to set aside the April 2016 judgment. He argued that dismissal of the workers’
compensation judicial action was improper because he had not received sufficient
notice of the action, and he filed an affidavit in support.
{¶5} This court in Smith I ordered a limited remand that permitted the court
of common pleas to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The trial court did not rule on the
Civ.R. 60(B) motion before the expiration of the limited remand period. This court
then addressed the merits of Smith’s appeal that challenged the dismissal of the
workers’ compensation judicial action for failure to prosecute. Based on the record,
which included only the materials filed at the time the trial court had entered the
judgment dismissing the workers’ compensation judicial action, see id. at ¶ 3, fn. 1, we
affirmed the trial court’s April 2016 judgment. Id. at ¶ 5. We did not consider whether
Smith’s motions for “reconsideration” or for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), which he
supported with evidence outside the record, had merit. See id. at ¶ 3, fn. 1.
{¶6} Years later, the court of common pleas entertained Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B)
motion to set aside the April 2016 judgment. In an entry dated April 27, 2022, the
trial court indicated it lacked jurisdiction to grant any relief absent a remand from a
higher court.
{¶7} Smith now appeals from the April 2022 judgment, arguing in a single
assignment of error that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined it
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The BWC has filed
a brief in support of the trial court’s judgment.
II. Analysis
{¶8} It is well settled that the filing of a notice of appeal divests a lower court
of jurisdiction to consider a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment. See
Howard v. Catholic Social Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 147, 637 N.E.2d 890 (1994);
Lambda Research v. Jacobs, 170 Ohio App.3d 750, 2007-Ohio-309, 869 N.E.2d 39, ¶
21 (1st Dist.) (“When a notice of appeal is filed, it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the common pleas court of its control over the aspects of the case
involved in the appeal. * * * Thus, the trial court is prohibited from taking any action
that is inconsistent with the appellate court’s ability to review, affirm, modify, or
reverse the judgment being appealed.”).
{¶9} While an appeal is pending, a reviewing court through a remand order
may confer jurisdiction on the lower court for consideration of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion
to set aside the judgment appealed. Howard at 147, cited in State ex rel. Target Auto
Repair v. Morales, 168 Ohio St.3d 88, 2022-Ohio-2062, 195 N.E.3d 1027, ¶ 9.
However, after appeals have been finalized, a lower court has jurisdiction to rule on a
Civ.R. 60(B) motion. See, e.g., Carlson v. City of Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-210238, 2022-Ohio-1513, ¶ 16 (involving a post-appeal Civ.R. 60(B) motion); Cherol
v. Sieben Invests., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 05MA112, 2006-Ohio-7048 (Vukocich, J.,
concurring) (Admonishing the trial court for failing to rule on a pending Civ.R. 60(B)
motion during a limited remand by the appellate court and explaining that “[w]ith the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
resolution of this appeal, the trial court regains jurisdiction to decide the motion
pending before it.”).
{¶10} In this case, the trial court considered Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to
set aside the April 2016 judgment in April 2022, long after all the appeals in the case
had been completed. Because no appeals were pending, no other court had jurisdiction
over the case. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction in April 2022 to entertain
Smith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the April 2016 judgment. The trial court erred
when it held otherwise and did not review the merits of Smith’s motion, which was
based on new evidentiary material.
III. Conclusion
{¶11} Where no appeal of the April 2016 judgment was pending, the trial court
erred when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Smith’s Civ.R.
60(B) motion to vacate that April 2016 judgment. Consequently, we sustain Smith’s
assignment of error, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand the cause for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
5