Motion to Consolidate in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Consolidate?

Background

“‘[T]he management of cases lies within the discretion of the court, and not with the parties so long as the rights of the parties are adequately protected.’” (Perry v. Perry Local School District, Accelerated No. 99-L-174, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. June 23, 2000] citing Dir. of Highways v. Kleines (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 317, 320.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Civ.R. 42(A) permits courts to order the consolidation of pending cases where they involve common questions of law or fact. However, a trial court has discretion in ruling on a motion to consolidate, and a reviewing court will not reverse the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.” (Perry v. Perry Local School District, Accelerated No. 99-L-174, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. June 23, 2000] citing McDonnold v. McDonnold (1994) 98 Ohio App.3d 822, 827.)

Consolidation for Foreclosure Proceedings on a Lien of the State

“R.C. 5721.18(A) provides that in foreclosure proceedings on a lien of the state, ‘the treasurer may join in one action any number of lots or lands, but the decree shall be rendered separately, and any proceedings may be severed, in the discretion of the court or board of revision, for the purpose of trial or appeal, and the court or board of revision shall make such order for the payment of costs as is considered proper.’” (Id.)

“Further, R.C. 5721.18(B) states, ‘any number of parcels may be joined in one action. Each separate parcel included in a complaint shall be given a serial number and shall be separately indexed and docketed by the clerk of the court ....’” (Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes By Action in Rem v. Parcels of Land Encumbered With Delinquent Tax Liens (Re: Jack Bonnell, 2019 Ohio 4642, 5-6 [Ohio Ct. App. 2019] quoting R.C. 5721.18(A).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[Courts] review the denial of a motion to consolidate for an abuse of discretion.” (Sutton Funding LLC v. Herres, 2015 Ohio 3609, 15 [Ohio Ct. App. 2015] citing City Loan & Savings Co. (1984) 16 Ohio App.3d 185.)

Standard for Foreclosure Proceedings

“Like consolidation of civil matters under Civil Rule 42(A), consolidation pursuant to R.C. 5721.18 is discretionary and the trial court has the discretionary authority whether to grant or deny the motion.” (Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes By Action in Rem v. Parcels of Land Encumbered With Delinquent Tax Liens (Re: Jack Bonnell, 2019 Ohio 4642, 6 [Ohio Ct. App. 2019] citing World Tire Corp. v. Webb, 5th Dist. Knox No. 06CA10, 2007-Ohio-5135.) Thus, [the Court of Appeals] will not reverse a trial court's decision on such a motion absent an abuse of discretion. (Id., citing State ex rel. Nat'l City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814 N.E.2d 58.)

The Court’s Decision

“Civ. R. 42(A) does not require a hearing by the trial court before denying a motion to consolidate when it is apparent from the record that a hearing would be improper and possibly violate Civ. R. 42(B).” (City Loan Savings Co. v. Howard (1984) 16 Ohio App. 3d 185.)

“The denial of [an] appellants’ motion to consolidate does not fall under any of the categories for being a final order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the denial of a motion to consolidate is not a final appealable order.” (Willoughby v. Willoughby, 2011 Ohio 400, 3-4 [Ohio Ct. App. 2011] citing State ex rel. Eberling v. Nugent (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 129, 129. See, also, Keybank Natl. Assn, supra, at ¶ 16.)

Documents for Motion to Consolidate in Ohio

Sort By

TRD-13-05-04891

4 pages

Filed on 03/18/2014 at 07:00 AM in Wayne County, Ohio JAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, WAYNE GOUNTY, OHIO WAYN COUNTY JUVENILE COURT oO MAYOR'S COURT, 3 AsAIES ‘QF OHIO eer PF PQWOOSTER DIORRVILLE ORITTMAN TICKET # OPERATOR: Wooster OH. STATE TRe | SaRTH TE 7aAsa\ - CLASS ENDORSEMENT(s) Og "Pl omas eS al) -13.CS “OSE NAME T t ‘. amas E_ 2 STREET 388° onthe Fa 3 CITY, STATE. NCI) SINGS r Oe DL OME OO0ther__ SEX AVS: 31220 a TO BEFENDANT: COMPLAINT ON > ~ 20 L Sar YOU eratet nger/Park…

Case Name TRD-13-05-04891 - STATE OF OHIO vs. WOOFTER, THOMAS E