Reynolds v. Budzik, 732 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Reynolds v. Budzik, 732 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
106 citation events (106 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mikes Handyman/HVAC Serv., L.L.C. v. DiFiore (ohioctapp, 2025-11-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mikes Handyman/HVAC Serv., L.L.C. v. DiFiore
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
A “‘reviewing court will not reverse a correct judgment merely because a trial court relied on an erroneous reason as the basis for its determination.’” Shaut v. Roberts, 2022-Ohio-817, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting O’Neal v. State, 2020-Ohio-506, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.). “‘[A]n appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.’” O’Neal at ¶ 20 , quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 (6th Dist. 1999).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scanes (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ohio Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
While this issue was not addressed by the trial court, we must affirm the judgment “if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.” Toledo v. Schmiedebusch, 192 Ohio App.3d 402 , 2011-Ohio-284 , 949 N.E.2d 504, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.), quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn 3 (6th Dist.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kerr v. OhioHealth Corp.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
No. 17AP-726, 2018-Ohio-3958, ¶ 33 , quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 (6th Dist.1999), fn. 3 (stating that, even when a trial court has stated erroneous reasons for its judgment, " 'an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds' "); Joyce v. Gen.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. Morningstar (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Highland No. 08CA19, 2009-Ohio-3117 , ¶ 25, quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn. 3 (6th Dist.1999) (“ ‘when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial’ ”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bierleinl v. Grandview Hts. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
unknown court · 2020 · confidence medium
No. 17AP-726, 2018-Ohio-3958, ¶ 33 , quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 (6th Dist.1999) (observing that " 'when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, 1Appellants never attempted to seek a variance from the requirements of the zoning code.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Neal v. State
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
"In other words, 'when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.' " Id., quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 (6th Dist.1999), fn. 3. {¶ 21} Here, 01-COM-11 is exempt from the filing requirements of R.C. 111.15(B)(1)(a) and (b) because it is not a "rule" pursuant to R.C. 111.15(A)(1).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hubbard v. Charter One Bank
Ohio Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, n.3 , 732 N.E.2d 485 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tribett v. Shepherd
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn. 3 (6th Dist.1999) fn. 3, citing Newcomb v. Dredge, 105 Ohio App. 417, 424 , 152 N.E.2d 801 (2d Dist.1957); State v. Payton, 124 Ohio App.3d 552, 557 , 706 N.E.2d 842 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eisenbarth v. Reusser
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn. 3 (6th Dist.1999) fn. 3, citing Newcomb v. Dredge, 105 Ohio App. 417, 424 , 152 N.E.2d 801 (2d Dist.1957); State v. Payton, 124 Ohio App.3d 552, 557 , 706 N.E.2d 842 (1997). {¶76} Moreover, "an appellate court is bound to affirm a trial court's judgment that is legally correct on other grounds regardless of the arguments raised or not raised by the parties." State v. Helms, 7th Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Culp v. Olukoga
Ohio Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn. 3 (6th Dist. 1999); Newcomb v. Dredge, 105 Ohio App. 417, 424 , 152 N.E.2d 801 (2nd Dist. 1957) (“It is the duty of the reviewing court to affirm the judgment if it can be supported on any theory, although a different theory from that of the trial court.”). {¶ 63} In the case at bar, we believe the trial court’s judgment is legally correct on other grounds, i.e., the court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motions to reconsider.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bevens v. Wooten Landscaping, Inc.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485, 486, fn.3 (6th Dist. 1999); Newcomb v. Dredge, 105 Ohio App. 417, 424 , 152 N.E.2d 801, 806-807 (2nd Dist. 1957) (“It is the duty of the reviewing court to affirm the judgment if it can be supported on any theory, although a different theory from that of the trial court.”). {¶ 15} In the case at bar, even if the trial court’s rationale for its judgment in appellee’s favor is incorrect, we must uphold the judgment if it is proper under a different theory.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pancake v. Pancake
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
No. 08CA19, 2009-Ohio-3117 , ¶ 25, in turn quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, fn. 3 , 732 N.E.2d 485 (6th Dist.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Englewood v. Turner
Ohio Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485, fn. 3 (“[WJhen a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial”). {¶ 20} In the proposed second amended complaint, Turner asserted claims against Englewood; Karl Keith, the Montgomery County Auditor; and Hugh Quill, the Montgomery County Treasurer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Estate of Workman, 07ca39 (6-27-2008)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Myers v. Garson (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 610 , 614 N.E.2d 742 . ("[A] reviewing court is not authorized to reverse an otherwise correct judgment because erroneous arguments were made by the moving party."); Joyce v. General Motors Corp. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 93 , 96 , 551 N.E.2d 172 (same); In re Estate of Baker , Lorain App. No. 07CA009113, 2007-Ohio-6549 , at ¶ 15 ("An appellate court shall affirm a trial court's judgment that is legally correct on other grounds, that is, one that achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial."); Reynolds v. Budzi…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. American Family Insurance
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, fn. 3 , 732 N.E.2d 485 . {¶ 30} Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is not well taken.
discussed Cited "see" Martin v. LexisNexis
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rodefer v. Colbert, 2015-Ohio-1982 , ¶ 17 (2d Dist.) (“an appellate court must ‘ “affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial” ’ ”), quoting Reid v. Wallaby’s Inc., 2012-Ohio-1437, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.), quoting Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, fn. 3 (6th Dist. 1999). {¶ 19} Martin’s assignments of error are overruled.
discussed Cited "see" Summers v. Lake of the Woods Apartments
Ohio Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Toledo v. Schmiedebusch, 192 Ohio App. 3d 402 , 2011-Ohio-284 , 949 N.E.2d 504, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.) (“‘[W]hen a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.’”), citing Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App. 3d 844, 846 , 932 N.E.2d 485 (6th Dist. 1999), fn. 3. {¶ 22} For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant’s first assignment of error is found not well-taken.
discussed Cited "see" DeFoe v. Schoen Builders, L.L.C. (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485 (6th Dist.1999), fn. 3, citing Agricultural Ins.
cited Cited "see" Misseldine v. American Guarantee, Unpublished Decision (5-8-2003)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844 , 846 ; Newcomb v. Dredge (1957), 105 Ohio App. 417 , 424 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Reid v. Wallaby's Inc. (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Reynolds v. Budzik, 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, fn.3 , 732 N.E.2d 485 (6th Dist. 1999) (noting that “when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.”) {¶ 53} “Equitable estoppel precludes a party from asserting certain facts where the party, by his conduct, has induced another to change his position in good-faith reliance upon 21 that conduct.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Transky v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 846 , 732 N.E.2d 485 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clemens v. Clemens, 07-Ca-73 (9-19-2008) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844 , 846 , n. 3, 732 N.E.2d 485 ("when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial.") Cheryl had the burden of proof, because she was the party asserting the existence of an oral agreement.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
REYNOLDS Et Al. Appellees,
v.
BUDZIK, Chief, Appellant
Court of Appeals No. E-99-048. Trial Court No. 98 CV 165..
Ohio Court of Appeals.
Dec 3, 1999.
732 N.E.2d 485
Jeffrey C. Zilba, for appellees., Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Joan C. Weiser and Eva M. Brault, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.
Handwork, Sherck, Pietrykowski.
Cited by 59 opinions  |  Published
Handwork, Presiding Judge.

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas which granted summary judgment to appellees, Frank Reynolds and Dean Koch. For the reasons stated herein, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Michael Budzik, Chief, Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“Division”), sets forth the following assignments of error:

“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

“A. The trial court erred in holding that Ohio Admin. Code 1501:31-3-01, 1501:31-3-02 and 1501:31-3-04 are invalid.

“1. The trial court erred in refusing to hold that the Division of Wildlife has authority to adopt rules that regulate commercial fishing.

“2. The trial court erred in refusing to apply the presumption that the rules are valid.

[*846] “3. The trial court erred in deciding issues not presented by the parties.

“4. The trial court erred in considering evidence which it gathered independently.”

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On April 15, 1998, appellees filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of the validity of three administrative rules that regulate commercial fishing. [1] In their complaints, [2] appellees alleged that they are commercial fishermen licensed by the Division to fish the waters of Lake Erie; that the Ohio General Assembly passed Am.Sub.S.B. No. 182 (“Bill 182”), effective October 20, 1994, which, in relevant part, addressed the rule-making authority of appellant in regard to commercial fishing; and that the three rules promulgated by appellant either expired and/or were unenforceable. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 17, 1999, the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees and denied summary judgment to appellant, basing its reasoning in part on this court’s opinion in State v. Reynolds (Jan. 16, 1998), Ottawa App. No. OT-97-022, unreported, 1998 WL 15633. [3]

In Reynolds, supra, this court held that, because of Bill 182 and the resulting changes to R.C. 1501.10, Reynolds had been charged with violating Ohio Adm. Code 1501:31-3-02(E) after it had expired. The pertinent portion of Bill 182 states:

“SECTION 4. Any rule adopted or order issued by the Chief of the Division of Wildlife in the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 1531. or 1533. of the Revised Code for the purpose of regulating the taking of commercial fish, as defined in section 1531.01 of the Revised Code, that is in effect on the effective[*847] date of this act shall remain in effect for not more than five years from the date of the original effective date of the rule regardless of whether the rule or order subsequently is amended or modified, except that any such rule that expires on the effective date of this act shall continue in effect for one year after that effective date.” (Emphasis added.) 145 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2082.

Consistent with Section 4, Bill 182 also amended R.C. 1531.09 and 1531.10. Effective October 20,1994, R.C. 1531.10 states in relevant part:

“In accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, the chief of the division of wildlife shall adopt, and may amend and rescind, rules that are necessary for the administration and enforcement of this chapter and Chapter 1533. of the Revised Code. * * *

“Any rule adopted by the chief under this section for the purpose of regulating the taking of commercial fish shall remain in effect for not more than five years after the date of adoption regardless of whether the rule subsequently is amended under this section.” (Emphasis added.)

Prior to the 1994 amendment to R.C. 1531.10, non-emergency rules promulgated by appellant pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 did not have time limits unless expressly stated therein. See State v. Koch (Jan. 13,1995), Erie App. No. E-94-24, unreported, 1995 WL 12144. The 1994 amendment expressly mandated an expiration date for rules promulgated by appellant.

In his brief, appellant argues that the Division rescinded the commercial fishing rules in early 1998, and adopted new rules. However, appellant’s assertion that the Division adopted “new rules” overlooks R.C. 1.54, dealing with continuation of prior statutes, which states:

“A statute which is reenacted or amended is intended to be a continuation of the prior statute and not a new enactment, so far as it is the same as the prior statute.” (Emphasis added.) See State ex rel. Taylor v. Cowen (1917), 96 Ohio St. 277, 282, 117 N.E. 238, 239, in which the Ohio Supreme Court stated: “In the construction of legislation of this character the legal principle has become well established that when the amendatory or reenacted law substantially reenacts the existing law, the latter is held to be in effect continuous and undisturbed, and in contemplation of law the amendatory measure is not a repeal but merely a reaffirmance of the former law. In re Allen, 91 Ohio St., 315 [110 N.E. 535 (1915)], and In re Hesse, 93 Ohio St., 230 [112 N.E. 511 (1915)].” See, also, Annotation, Effect of Simultaneous Repeal and Re-enactment of All, or Part, of Legislative Act, (1961), 77 A.L.R.2d 336, 341, 1961 WL 12926. Although these citations concern statutes, this court can discern no reason not to apply the same principles to agency rules. Thus, when appellant rescinded and then readopted the exact same rules, the rules were not new rules but, rather, continuations of[*848] the prior rules in violation of Section 4, Bill 182 and amended R.C. 1531.10. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the three rules at issue had expired.

Accordingly, appellant’s assignments of error are found not well taken.

On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the court costs of this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Sherck and Pietrykowski, JJ., concur.
1

. The three rules are the Season Rule, Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-3-01; the Length Rule, Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-3-02; and the Place and Time Rule, Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-3-04.

2

. Appellees filed an original and two amended complaints.

3

. In his brief, appellant argues that this court should reverse the trial court because it erred in deciding issues not presented by the parties. It has long been the law in Ohio that "where the judgment is correct, a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse such judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis thereof.” Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine (1944), 144 Ohio St. 275, 284, 29 O.O. 426, 430, 58 N.E.2d 658, 663. See, also, State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309; Cook v. Cincinnati (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 80, 658 N.E.2d 814. Thus, when a trial court has stated an erroneous basis for its judgment, an appellate court must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct on other grounds, that is, it achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such an error is not prejudicial. Newcomb v. Dredge (1957), 105 Ohio App. 417, 424, 6 O.O.2d 178, 181-182, 152 N.E.2d 801, 806-807; State v. Payton (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 552, 557, 706 N.E.2d 842, 845-846. See, also, 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 683, which states, "A reviewing court may look into the record and if the judgment being reviewed on appeal is right for any reason, it is the duty of the reviewing court to affirm it, as is graphically shown by holdings on a wide variety of situations.”