Discover Bank v. Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Discover Bank v. Johnson, 2003-Ohio-461.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY Discover Bank, issuer of the Discover Card, by its Servicing Agent Discover Financial Svcs., Inc., : : Case No. 03CA1 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Roger C. Johnson, : Released 1/24/03 Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Roger C. Johnson, S. Bloomingville, Ohio, pro se appellant. Charles Tate, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. ___________________________________________________________ Harsha, J. {¶1} On January 3, 2003, appellant, Roger Johnson, filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial court s Entry of December 12, Reconsideration. 2002 that denied his Motion for In his motion, filed on October 15, 2002, appellant asked the trial court to reconsider its October 2, 2002 Judgment Entry which granted summary judgment in favor of interest. appellee in the amount of $15, 404.30 plus {¶2} The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration after a final judgment in a trial court. Ohio St.2d motions, Pitts v. Dept. of Transportation (1981), 67 378. any Because motion for there is no provision reconsideration as for well such as any judgment entered in response is considered a nullity. Id. at 380-381. See, also, State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. Of Elections (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 58, citing Pitts. {¶3} The filing jurisdictional. of a timely notice of appeal is See, generally, State v. Fisher (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 279; Bosco v. City of Euclid (1974), 38 Ohio App.2d 40; Richards v. Industrial Commission (1955), 163 Ohio St. 439. The time for filing a notice of appeal is governed by App.R. 4 and, pursuant to App.R. 14(B), a court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal. Ross v. Harden (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 34. {¶4} In this case, appellant s Notice of Appeal should have been filed within thirty days of the October 2, 2002 Judgment. instead Appellant filed a did not Motion for appeal that judgment, Reconsideration appealed the trial court s denial of that motion. and but then Pursuant to Pitts, Pendell and Ross, supra, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider dismiss this appeal. this appeal. Thus, we hereby APPEAL DISMISSED. JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the APPEAL BE DISMISSED and that Appellee recover of Appellant costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Hocking County Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. Abele, J. & Kline, J.: Concur For the Court BY: _______________________________________ William H. Harsha, Administrative Judge NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
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.
