Schutte v. Akron Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., Unpublished Decision (9-13-2006)
Schutte v. Akron Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., Unpublished Decision (9-13-2006)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} On November 16, 2005, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the June 30, 2005 order on the basis that Appellees had misrepresented the terms of the settlement agreement when they submitted it to the judge. The trial judge denied the motion in an order dated December 5, 2005. Appellant filed this appeal from the December 5, 2005 order, raising three assignments of error.
{¶ 4} Appellant claims that Appellees misrepresented the terms of the settlement agreement in the final settlement entry submitted to the court on June 30, 2005. On this basis, Appellant argues that the settlement agreement is invalid and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate it.
{¶ 5} A trial court's decision to grant or deny a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Strack v. Pelton (1994),
{¶ 6} Appellant contends that he has a meritorious defense or claim in that Appellees' chronology and the subsequent settlement order failed to state all material terms of the settlement agreement between the parties and that the order therefore does not reflect the true contents of the settlement. Appellant further asserts that Appellee has committed fraud by failing to state all material terms of the agreement in the chronology and the settlement entry or, in the alternative, that the parties were mistaken as to which terms the parties agreed upon, and that the mistake or fraud satisfied the requirements of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) or Civ.R. 60(B)(3).
{¶ 7} The judgment which Appellant seeks to vacate was filed on June 30, 2005, or four and a half months before the motion to vacate was filed on November 16, 2005. Filing a Civ.R. 60(B) motion can neither "substitute for a timely appeal [nor] * * * extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment." Key v. Mitchell (1998),
{¶ 8} Because the trial court did not err in denying the motion to vacate where the only issues were those that could have been raised on a timely direct appeal, Yoakum, supra, the second and third assignments of error are moot, and the court declines to address them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Slaby, P.J. Whitmore, J. concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Robert Schutte, II v. Akron Public Schools Bd. of Education
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Unpublished