SWA, Inc. v. Richey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as SWA, Inc. v. Richey, 2008-Ohio-4713.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90902 SWA, INC. dba CENTURY OAK CARE CENTER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HELEN LOUISE BRADLEY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT vs. CLIFTON RICHEY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JUDGMENT: DISMISSED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-513389 and CV-521556 BEFORE: Blackmon, J., Gallagher, P.J., and Rocco, J. RELEASED: 9-17-08 JOURNALIZED: [Cite as SWA, Inc. v. Richey, 2008-Ohio-4713.] -iATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT For SWA Inc. dba Century Oak Care Center: Jonathan F. Sobel Kabat, Mielziner & Sobel 25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite #403 Beachwood, Ohio 44122 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT For Helen Louise Bradley: Michael Westerhaus 14255 Peppercreek Drive Strongsville, Ohio 44138 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES For Wells Fargo Bank: Amelia A. Bower Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. 300 East Broad St., Suite #590 Columbus, Ohio 43215 For Wells Fargo Bank: Kirk W. Kiederbach 5001 Mayfield Road, Suited #301 Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124 N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). [Cite as SWA, Inc. v. Richey, 2008-Ohio-4713.] PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: {¶ 1} Sua Sponte, we dismiss the instant appeal for lack of a final appealable order. The trial court adopted the magistrate s decision without separately stating its own judgment as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e) and Civ.R. 54(A). A trial court order stating that it is adopting a magistrate s decision is not a final appealable order. In re: Zinni, Cuyahoga App. No. 59899, 2008-Ohio-581, citing Harkai v. Scherba Indus. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 211; Plymouth Park Tax Servs., LLC, et al., v. Margaret A. Frazier, et al., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 90343, 90352, 90353, 90354, 90356, 90357, 90464, 90525, and 90526, 2008-Ohio-3348. To constitute a final appealable order, the trial court s journal entry must be a separate and distinct instrument from that of the magistrate s order and must grant relief on the issues originally submitted to the court. Id., citing In re: Jesmone Dortch (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 430. Appeal dismissed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.