GTE test in Ohio

2021“These requirements are independent and in the conjunctive; thus the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met.” Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 , 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994). {¶ 15} This appeal focuses on the second element of the GTE test; that is whether appellant is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through 9. (5).

2021“These requirements are independent and in the conjunctive; thus the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met.” Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 , 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994). {¶ 15} This appeal focuses on the second element of the GTE test; that is whether appellant is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through 9. (5).

2010Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 . ¶{26} The GTE factors are addressed in reverse order starting with the time requirement.

2010Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 . ¶{26} The GTE factors are addressed in reverse order starting with the time requirement.

2024He has not provided this court with a compelling reason why he had waited to do so until days before the sheriff’s sale. {¶58} For the reasons stated above, Appellant has not shown that the court abused its discretion in finding that he was not entitled to relief. {¶59} Appellant’s first, third, and fourth assignments of error are without merit because he has not fulfilled the second prong of the GTE test. {¶60} We next consider Appellant’s second assignment of error: {¶61} “The trial court abused its discretion by denying Mr. Brooks’ Motion for Relief from Judgment without holding a hearing.”

2024He has not provided this court with a compelling reason why he had waited to do so until days before the sheriff’s sale. {¶58} For the reasons stated above, Appellant has not shown that the court abused its discretion in finding that he was not entitled to relief. {¶59} Appellant’s first, third, and fourth assignments of error are without merit because he has not fulfilled the second prong of the GTE test. {¶60} We next consider Appellant’s second assignment of error: {¶61} “The trial court abused its discretion by denying Mr. Brooks’ Motion for Relief from Judgment without holding a hearing.”

2013See Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249-250 (1980) (finding what is reasonable under the circumstances depends on the facts of each case). {¶ 31} Based on the foregoing, since Mother failed to meet any of the three requirements of the GTE test, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion.

2013See Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 249-250 (1980) (finding what is reasonable under the circumstances depends on the facts of each case). {¶ 31} Based on the foregoing, since Mother failed to meet any of the three requirements of the GTE test, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion.

2013See id. {¶8} In his appellate brief, Mr. Dunn argues that he satisfied the first prong of the GTE test because he alleged a meritorious claim in his complaint.

2013See id. {¶8} In his appellate brief, Mr. Dunn argues that he satisfied the first prong of the GTE test because he alleged a meritorious claim in his complaint.

2026In applying the GTE test set forth in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), the trial court found the State’s meritorious defense was its interest in maintaining the conviction, satisfying the first prong of the test.

2026In applying the GTE test set forth in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), the trial court found the State’s meritorious defense was its interest in maintaining the conviction, satisfying the first prong of the test.

2022In general, an abuse of discretion occurs where a trial court’s decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} Selective Insurance challenges the second prong of the GTE test— whether Bronco was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1), which provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for * * * mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect[.]” 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶9} Bron

2022In general, an abuse of discretion occurs where a trial court’s decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} Selective Insurance challenges the second prong of the GTE test— whether Bronco was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1), which provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for * * * mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect[.]” 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶9} Bron

2022Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶18} Regarding the first prong of the GTE test, “the burden on the party seeking relief from judgment is only to allege operative facts, of sufficient evidentiary quality, which would constitute a meritorious defense if found to be true.” (Emphasis sic.) Classic Oldsmobile at *3, citing Fouts v. Weiss-Carson, 77 Ohio App.3d 563, 565 , 602 N.E.2d 1231 (11th Dist.1991). {¶19} Pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(I), “A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made under this section is n

2022Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶18} Regarding the first prong of the GTE test, “the burden on the party seeking relief from judgment is only to allege operative facts, of sufficient evidentiary quality, which would constitute a meritorious defense if found to be true.” (Emphasis sic.) Classic Oldsmobile at *3, citing Fouts v. Weiss-Carson, 77 Ohio App.3d 563, 565 , 602 N.E.2d 1231 (11th Dist.1991). {¶19} Pursuant to R.C. 3105.171(I), “A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made under this section is n

2005The grounds for invocation "should be substantial," and Civ.R. 60(B)(5) should not "be used as a substitute for any of the other more specific provisions of Civ.R. 60(B)." Id. {¶ 17} To prevail on a motion to vacate, Cecilia was required to meet the GTE test.

2005The grounds for invocation "should be substantial," and Civ.R. 60(B)(5) should not "be used as a substitute for any of the other more specific provisions of Civ.R. 60(B)." Id. {¶ 17} To prevail on a motion to vacate, Cecilia was required to meet the GTE test.

2022Rose Chevrolet at 20; GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Herring, 189 Ohio App.3d 200 , 2010-Ohio- 3650, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.); Meglan, Meglan & Co., Ltd. v. Bostic, 10th Dist.

2022Rose Chevrolet at 20; GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Herring, 189 Ohio App.3d 200 , 2010-Ohio- 3650, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.); Meglan, Meglan & Co., Ltd. v. Bostic, 10th Dist.

2018Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints, 64 Ohio App.2d 285, 289 (motion under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) filed seven months after notice of the action and four months after default entry is not filed “within a reasonable time”). -8- Case No. 8-17-49 {¶21} Having found the record void of evidence that Daniel and Mary timely filed their motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), we need not review the remaining prongs of the GTE test as it relates to this case.

2018Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints, 64 Ohio App.2d 285, 289 (motion under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) filed seven months after notice of the action and four months after default entry is not filed “within a reasonable time”). -8- Case No. 8-17-49 {¶21} Having found the record void of evidence that Daniel and Mary timely filed their motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), we need not review the remaining prongs of the GTE test as it relates to this case.

2005See, also, Kay v. Marc Glassman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19-20 ; Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 319 , 327 . {¶ 18} With these principles in mind, we hold the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled defendant's motion for relief from judgment without first holding an evidentiary hearing. {¶ 19} The first part of the GTE test requires that a meritorious defense be presented.

2005See, also, Kay v. Marc Glassman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 18 , 19-20 ; Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 319 , 327 . {¶ 18} With these principles in mind, we hold the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled defendant's motion for relief from judgment without first holding an evidentiary hearing. {¶ 19} The first part of the GTE test requires that a meritorious defense be presented.

2023See Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 , 493 N.E.2d 1353 (1986) (holding that Civ.R. 60(B)(4) applies to judgments that are no longer equitable where those subjected to the judgment did not have the ability to foresee or control, such as a change in circumstances).

2023See Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 , 493 N.E.2d 1353 (1986) (holding that Civ.R. 60(B)(4) applies to judgments that are no longer equitable where those subjected to the judgment did not have the ability to foresee or control, such as a change in circumstances).

2014Blasco, 69 Ohio St.2d at 686 (contentions raised in Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion merely challenged the correctness of the trial court’s decision on the merits and could have been raised on appeal); Doe, 28 Ohio St.3d 128 , at paragraph two of the syllabus (“A party may not use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal.”); compare Kostoglou, 2007-Ohio-3399, at ¶ 47-48 (eight-month delay in filing a Civ.R. 60(B) is reasonable when a party does not receive notice of the judgment until several months after its entry and the party files its motion shortly after receiving notice of the ent

2014Blasco, 69 Ohio St.2d at 686 (contentions raised in Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion merely challenged the correctness of the trial court’s decision on the merits and could have been raised on appeal); Doe, 28 Ohio St.3d 128 , at paragraph two of the syllabus (“A party may not use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal.”); compare Kostoglou, 2007-Ohio-3399, at ¶ 47-48 (eight-month delay in filing a Civ.R. 60(B) is reasonable when a party does not receive notice of the judgment until several months after its entry and the party files its motion shortly after receiving notice of the ent

2005Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 64 , 66 , 18 OBR 96 , 479 N.E.2d 879 . {¶ 20} Appellant argues that appellee failed to meet each and every requirement of the GTE test for entitlement to relief from judgment.

2005Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 64 , 66 , 18 OBR 96 , 479 N.E.2d 879 . {¶ 20} Appellant argues that appellee failed to meet each and every requirement of the GTE test for entitlement to relief from judgment.

2026Health Initiatives, 2025-Ohio-575, ¶ 34 (6th Dist.). {¶14} Regarding the first prong of the GTE test, the movant must establish a meritorious claim or defense exists by “alleg[ing] supporting operative facts with enough specificity to allow the trial court to decide that the movant has a defense he could have successfully argued at trial.” Kerr Bldgs., Inc. v. Bishop, 2014-Ohio- 5391, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.), quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dombroski, 2012-Ohio- 5858, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).

2026Health Initiatives, 2025-Ohio-575, ¶ 34 (6th Dist.). {¶14} Regarding the first prong of the GTE test, the movant must establish a meritorious claim or defense exists by “alleg[ing] supporting operative facts with enough specificity to allow the trial court to decide that the movant has a defense he could have successfully argued at trial.” Kerr Bldgs., Inc. v. Bishop, 2014-Ohio- 5391, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.), quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dombroski, 2012-Ohio- 5858, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.).

2026United Bank v. Lemon, 2018-Ohio-634, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.); Pickett v. Cath.

2026United Bank v. Lemon, 2018-Ohio-634, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.); Pickett v. Cath.

2026See also Whited v. Whited, 2020-Ohio-5067, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.). {¶15} Regarding the second prong of the GTE test, Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5) sets forth the following grounds for relief: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based ha

2026See also Whited v. Whited, 2020-Ohio-5067, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.). {¶15} Regarding the second prong of the GTE test, Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5) sets forth the following grounds for relief: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based ha

2026Gibbs v. Burley Trucking, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-1595, ¶6 (10th Dist.).

2026Gibbs v. Burley Trucking, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-1595, ¶6 (10th Dist.).