remedial rule in Ohio

2026However, “the concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1), is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to ‘strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.’” Russell v. McDonalds Inc., 2020-Ohio-4300, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting Colley v. Bazewell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 (1980), quoting 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 140, § 2851.

2026Liberty Nursing Ctr. of Englewood, Inc. v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-1096, ¶ 57 (2d Dist.), citing Gorby & Assoc., LLC v. McCarty, 2011- Ohio-1983, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable manner.’” North v. Eichler, 2026-Ohio-857, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 107 (1989). {¶ 16} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 1996-Ohio-430, ¶ 8 , citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249 (1980). “‘Civ.R.

2024Gregory v. Abdul-Aal, 2004-Ohio-1703, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.). {¶45} Appellant asserts in his third assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he was not entitled to relief for excusable neglect and mistake. {¶46} “The term ‘excusable neglect’ is an elusive concept which has been difficult to define and to apply.” Kay at 20 . “[T]he concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) is a remedial rule to be 10 liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to “‘strike a proper

2024Partnership, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-640, 2015-Ohio-1368 , ¶ 11, quoting GTE Automatic Elec. at 153. “[T]he concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to ‘strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.’ ” Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 (1980), quoting Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick, 53 Ohio St.2d 9, 12 (1978).

2025“Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20 (1996), citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249 (1980).

2024It is “a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20 (1996).

2022Id., citing Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 , 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988). {¶ 17} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of -9- justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996).

2022Id., citing Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 , 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988). {¶ 17} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of -9- justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996).

2021The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. {¶ 19} "Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule and should be liberally construed." Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684, 685 (1982), citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 (1980).

2013The motion shall be made -4- Warren CA2012-07-068 within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. {¶ 12} "Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule and should be liberally construed." Blasco v. Mislik, 69 Ohio St.2d 684, 685 (1982), citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 (1980).

2021It enables trial courts to strike a balance between the need for finality and the need for “fair and equitable decisions based upon full and accurate information.” In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239, 242 (1998). {¶12} The Ohio Supreme Court, again emphasizing that Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be construed to achieve a just result, held that, after parties stipulated “to a material fact in error[,]” the prejudiced party was entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1).

2008While Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule and, therefore, to be construed liberally, the trial court must bear in mind that the rule attempts to "strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done." Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243 , 248 , citing 11 Wright Miller, Federal Practice Procedure 140, Section 2851, as quoted in Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9 , 12 . *Page 5 {¶ 13} The decision to grant or deny a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is entrusted "to the sound discretion of the trial court." In re Whitm

2022Civ.R. 60(B)(1) “is a remedial rule to be liberally construed,” so as to “strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 64, 68 (1985). 9 {¶24} In the interests of justice, the trial court had the authority to determine whether trial counsel’s reasons for filing objections five days beyond the objection period constituted excusable neglect and whether the other requirements of Civ.R. 60(B) had been satisfied.

2004GTE, 47 Ohio St.2d at 152 ; see, also, Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Center, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 64 , 68 , 479 N.E.2d 879 . {¶ 14} Moreover, as the court explained in Moore : "* * * [T]he concept of `excusable neglect' must be construed in keeping with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1), is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to `strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done." Id. at 68 (Citations omitted). {¶ 15} In this case, the

2011The concept of “excusable neglect” is a remedial rule and is to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to “strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.” Svoboda v. Brunswick (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 348, 351 , 453 N.E.2d 648 , quoting Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 , 416 N.E.2d 605 .

2011The concept of “excusable neglect” is a remedial rule and is to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to “strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.” Svoboda v. Brunswick (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 348, 351 , 453 N.E.2d 648 , quoting Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 , 416 N.E.2d 605 .

2023It is important that “courts must remain mindful of the fact that ‘ “[m]atters involving large sums should not be determined by default judgments if it can reasonabl[y] be avoided.” ’ ” Id., quoting Colley at 249, fn5 , quoting Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir.1951). {¶36} Ultimately, [a] court must interpret the concept of excusable neglect in a manner consistent with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to strike a balance between the conflicting princ

2022Assn. v. McGhee, 4th Dist. Gallia Nos. 12CA11, 13CA4, 2013-Ohio-3859, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Hulgin, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26719, 2013-Ohio-2794, ¶ 13 , quoting Colley at 249. “[C]ourts must remain mindful of the fact that ‘ “[m]atters involving large sums should not be determined by default judgments if it can reasonabl[y] be avoided.” ’ ” [brackets sic.] Id., quoting Colley at 249, fn.5 , quoting Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir.1951). {¶30} Finally, “ ‘[w]here timely relief is sought from a default judgment and the movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if

2008Citizens for Responsible Taxation , at 136. {¶ 14} Barker asserts that the judgment entry was based upon a mistake.

1999Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 134 , the Supreme Court held that Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule that is to be liberally construed with a view toward effecting a just result.

2026“Neglect is not excusable when it is a result of the party’s own ‘carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard of the process of the court’ rather than a result of some ‘unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident.’” Russell at ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), quoting Emery v. Smith, 2005-Ohio-5526, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.).

2026However, “the concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1), is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to ‘strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done.’” Russell v. McDonalds Inc., 2020-Ohio-4300, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting Colley v. Bazewell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248 (1980), quoting 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 140, § 2851.

2026Liberty Nursing Ctr. of Englewood, Inc. v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-1096, ¶ 57 (2d Dist.), citing Gorby & Assoc., LLC v. McCarty, 2011- Ohio-1983, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable manner.’” North v. Eichler, 2026-Ohio-857, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 107 (1989). {¶ 16} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 1996-Ohio-430, ¶ 8 , citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249 (1980). “‘Civ.R.

2026Buzby v. Chamoun, 2014-Ohio-4676, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), citing Medina Supply Co., Inc. v. Corrado, 116 Ohio App.3d 847, 851 (8th Dist. 1996).

2026Liberty Nursing Ctr. of Englewood, Inc. v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-1096, ¶ 57 (2d Dist.), citing Gorby & Assoc., LLC v. McCarty, 2011- Ohio-1983, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable manner.’” North v. Eichler, 2026-Ohio-857, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 107 (1989). {¶ 16} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 1996-Ohio-430, ¶ 8 , citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249 (1980). “‘Civ.R.

2026Buzby v. Chamoun, 2014-Ohio-4676, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), citing Medina Supply Co., Inc. v. Corrado, 116 Ohio App.3d 847, 851 (8th Dist. 1996).

2026Liberty Nursing Ctr. of Englewood, Inc. v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-1096, ¶ 57 (2d Dist.), citing Gorby & Assoc., LLC v. McCarty, 2011- Ohio-1983, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable manner.’” North v. Eichler, 2026-Ohio-857, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 107 (1989). {¶ 16} “Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed so that the ends of justice may be served.” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 1996-Ohio-430, ¶ 8 , citing Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249 (1980). “‘Civ.R.