 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Laviena12/7/2005
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Mary DeGenaro
{ } Plaintiff-appellant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment granting a motion for relief from judgment in favor of intervenors-appellees, Nancy, Jessica, Julie, and Joey Ortiz, and defendant Jose Laviena, thereby vacating a declaratory judgment entered in favor of appellant.
{ } On June 20, 1997, Laviena allegedly shot and injured appellee Jessica Ortiz. Appellees subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against Laviena. Laviena had a homeowner's insurance policy with appellant. Consequently, Laviena tendered defense of the lawsuit to appellant.
{ } Appellant subsequently filed a complaint against Laviena seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him as to claims arising from the alleged shooting. Appellant asserted that because Laviena acted intentionally, he was excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Appellant then filed a motion for default judgment after Laviena failed to answer the complaint.
{ } The trial court granted the motion for default judgment on October 15, 2001. At the time the trial courted granted default judgment, appellees were not a party to this action. Upon learning of the default judgment, appellees subsequently filed a motion to intervene and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on October 25, 2001. A magistrate held a hearing on the motion. However, he did not issue a decision until April 23, 2004. The magistrate determined that appellees should be permitted to intervene but that their motion for relief from judgment should be denied.
{ } Appellees filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On July 15, 2004, the trial court granted appellees' Civ.R. 60(B) motion. In doing so, the trial court vacated its prior declaratory judgment entry. Appellant timely appealed the judgment.
{ } Appellant raises one assignment of error, which states:
{ } "BECAUSE APPELLEES FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IN THEIR 'MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER CIVIL RULE 60(B)' THAT THEY HAD A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE TO PRESENT IF RELIEF WAS GRANTED, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED APPELLEES' CIV.R. 60(B) MOTION."
{ } Appellant argues that appellees were required to allege operative facts that, if believed, would constitute a meritorious defense to its declaratory judgment claims. It contends that appellee failed to allege any operative facts at all that would constitute a meritorious defense. Appellant further argues that appellees' contention that they are exempt from the "meritorious defense" requirement due to their "procedural context" is unsupported by authority. Therefore, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellees' Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
{ } An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Russo v. Deters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237. Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error in judgment; it implies that the trial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{ } The Ohio Supreme Court set out the controlling test for Civ.R. 60(B) motions in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. Arc Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113. The court stated:
{ } "To prevail on a motion brought under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|