 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Backie v. Cash9/20/2004
rial court retains jurisdiction over its judgments as well as proceedings in aid of the same." State Ex Rel. Klein V. Chorpening (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 3, 450 N.E.2d 1161.
{ } A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a final judgment and to initiate any proceedings in support of that judgment unless a valid stay order and supersedeas bond have been posted. Hagood at 785; Strah v.. Lake Cty. Humane Soc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 822, 836; State ex rel. Klein v. Chorpening (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 3, 4; White at 272; Vavrina v. Greczanik (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 129, 132.
{ } Regardless of the dismissal of Monroe, the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to enforce its Order as to the excess coverage and pro rata sharing thereof. Such dismissal, by Appellants, did not and could not nullify such Order.
{ } Appellants' first assignment of error is denied.
II.
{ } In their second assignment of error, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in ordering them to pay to Ohio Casualty Group the sum of $100,416.93. We disagree.
{ } Appellants are challenging the amount of money the trial court ordered them to pay to OCG in reimbursement in accordance with its determination that OCG's $100,000/$300,000 auto policy and Monroe Guaranty's $6,000,000 umbrella policy provided excess coverage and that they would share in such coverage pro rata.
{ } The arbitration award determined the total value of each estate's damages. Appellants have been fully compensated for such damages. Appellants, however, are still in possession of the advanced funds in the amount of $166,666.66 ($83,333.33 per Estate), which must be returned to Appellees as Appellants are not entitled to compensation over and above the damage award.
{ } As Appellees have jointly agreed on the pro-rata distribution of this amount, this Court will not disturb same.
{ } Appellants' second assignment of error is denied.
{ } Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed
By: Boggins, J. Gwin, P. J., and Wise, J., concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellants.
|