Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983

Kelm v. Hess

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided February 8, 1983 · Norris, Reilly, McCormac

457 N.E.2d 911; 8 Ohio App. 3d 448; 8 Ohio B. 572; 1983 WL 3342; 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 10984 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Federal Land Bank of Louisville v. Wilcox (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Poppa Builders, Inc. v. Campbell (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
Huntington Natl. Bk. v. Shelving Co., Unpublished Decision (4-6-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Hagood v. Gail (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
Taylor v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Peoples Trust & Savings Bank v. Security Savings Bank (Iowa 2012)
Kevin O'Brien Associates v. Baum, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Earley v. Mansfield (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Bob Krihwan Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl (Ohio 2000)
Marotta Building Co. v. Lesinski, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Crown Heating Cooling v. Trickett, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Atlantic Veneer Corp. v. Robbins, Unpublished Decision (7-8-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Kogler v. Daniel Bros. Fuel Co., Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
City of Grove City v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Westfield Lakes v. Board of Zoning Appeals, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl (Ohio 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Norris, J.

In oral argument, it was agreed by the parties that the trial court’s judgment had been paid and satisfied in full. Where a final judgment orders the payment of money, and the order is not stayed but instead complied with by voluntary payment of the amount ordered, an appeal from the order will be dismissed as moot since reversal of the order would be ineffectual in affording any relief to the appellant. In re Appropriation for Highway Purposes (1959), 169 Ohio St. 314, 316 [8 O.O.2d 315]; State, ex rel. Smith, v. Baker (1954), 160 Ohio St. 526 [52 O.O. 389]; Lynch v. Bd. of Edn. (1927), 116 Ohio St. 361, paragraph three of the syllabus; see, also, Favret Co. v. West (1970), 21 Ohio App.2d 38.

Although appellant apparently paid the judgment under threat of garnishment, a pending garnishment would not render payment involuntary, in view of appellant’s entitlement to a stay of the trial court’s judgment as a matter of right, upon giving adequate bond. State, ex rel. Ocasek, v. Riley (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490 [8 O.O.3d 466]. Since appellant was in a financial position to pay the judgment, she undoubtedly would have been able to give an adequate appeal bond.

The questions raised by the appeal being moot, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Reilly and McCormac, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.