Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment?

Background

A trial court has plenary power to reconsider a decision prior to final judgment. (Peffley v. Motorists Ins. Group, 2007 Ohio 4572 at ¶ 42.) Motions to reconsider are appropriate where a court has not fully considered a matter that it should have. (Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App. 3d 68; 523 N.E.2d 515.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Civ. R. 54(B) allows for a reconsideration or rehearing of interlocutory orders. Interlocutory orders are “subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” (Id.)

Summary Judgment Initial Review

“The standard of review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is the same for both a trial court and an appellate court.” (Klocinski v. American States Ins. Co., 2004 Ohio 6657 [Ohio Ct. App. 2004] citing Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989) 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129.) “An appellate court considers an appeal from a summary judgment under a de novo standard of review.” (Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996) 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105.) “A de novo review requires an independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination.” (Id.; Brown v. Cty. Commrs. (1993) 87 Ohio App. 3d 704, 711.) “A grant of summary judgment will be upheld if ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of facts, if any, [...] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and, “construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, reasonable minds can only conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” (Civ.R. 56(C).)

Test for Reconsideration

“The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” (Columbus v. Hodge (1987) 37 Ohio App. 3d 68 citing Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 5 OBR 320, 450 N.E.2d 278, followed.)

“The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the appellant because an appellant bears the burden of showing error by reference to the matters in the record. When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, a court has nothing to pass upon and, thus, the court must presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm.” (Columbus, supra, 37 Ohio App. 3d 68.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A motion for reconsideration will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. In order to find an abuse of discretion, [the reviewing court] must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment.” (Turner v. Isecuretrac Corp., 2004 Ohio 2234 [Ohio Ct. App. 2004] citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.)

“In determining whether the trial court properly denied [Appellant’s] motion to reconsider summary judgment, [the reviewing court shall] apply a de novo standard of review. Accordingly, [the reviewing court] afford[s] no deference to the trial court's decision and independently review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate.” (Dunn v. North Star Resources, Inc., No. 79455, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2002].)

The Court’s Decision

“A trial court's decision whether to reconsider a previous interlocutory order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.“ (See Vanest v. Pillsbury Co. (1997) 124 Ohio App.3d 525, 535.} “If a trial court chooses to reconsider its prior decision, however, an appellate court must apply the standard of review applicable to the merits of the motion being reconsidered....” (Klocinski v. American States Ins. Co. 2004 Ohio 6657 [Ohio Ct. App. 2004] citing See Evans v. Dianna's Deli Rest. Grill, 8th Dist. No. 81746, 2003-Ohio-1173; Gentry v. Kelley [Aug. 31, 2001] 6th Dist. No. L-01-1234.)

“[...] Civ. R. 60(B) specifies that ‘[t]he procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules.’ No Civil Rule authorizes ‘explaining’ matters to a trial court and persuading it to vacate a judgment and then reinstitute the identical judgment that same date.” (State, ex Rel. Center, v. Court of Appeals, 56 Ohio St. 3d 33, 36 (Ohio 1990) [denying writ of appeal, explaining “Given the facts they allege in their memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, relators should have filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B)(1) (“mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect”), 60(B)(3) (“fraud [whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic], misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party”), or 60(B)(5) (“any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.”)])

Documents for Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment in Ohio

Sort By

11-CV-0083

4 pages

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO DON & CAROLYN KOPRIVEC, } CASE NO. 11-CV-0083 etal. ) ) JUDGE COREY E. SPITLER Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) DEFENDANT RAILS-TO-TRAILS OF RAILS-TO-TRAILS OF WAYNE ) WAYNE COUNTY’S MEMORANDUM COUNTY, ) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY Defendant. ) JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT'S ) COUNTERCLAIMS L INTRODUCTION Defendant Rails-to-Trails of Wayne County (“Rails-to-Trails”), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits…

Case Name 11-CV-0083 - KOPRIVEC, DON & CAROLYN vs. RAILS-TO-TRAILS OF WAYNE COUNTY