Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. v. Jensen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. v. Jensen, 2011-Ohio-2703.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc. Appellee Court of Appeals No. OT-11-009 Trial Court No. 10CV745E v. Kenneth Jensen, et al. Appellants DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: May 31, 2011 ***** Jason A. Whitacre, Kathryn M. Eyster, and Laura C. Infante, for appellee. Daniel L. McGookey, Richard Barry Hardy, III, and Lauren McGookey, for appellants. ***** PER CURIAM. {¶1} Appellee, Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc., has filed a brief in opposition to appellants' "Motion for Stay and to Remand Proceeding to the Trial Court." In that motion, appellants asked this court to stay the proceedings in this court and to remand the case to the trial court to rule on a pending Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment being appealed. {¶2} The court granted the motion to remand on May 25, 2011; appellee's brief in opposition was filed on May 25, 2011. The court did not receive the brief until after its decision was released. Therefore, we will treat the brief in opposition as a motion to reconsider our decision. {¶3} Appellee objects to the court's granting appellants' motion to stay and remand on the grounds that appellants' motion did not conform to the requirements of App.R. 7(A), which states: {¶4} "Stay or injunction pending appeal--civil and juvenile actions {¶5} "(A) Stay must ordinarily be sought in the first instance in trial court; motion for stay in court of appeals. {¶6} "Application for a stay of the judgment or order of a trial court pending appeal, * * * must ordinarily be made in the first instance in the trial court. * * *[T]he motion shall show that application to the trial court for the relief sought is not practicable, or that the trial court has, by journal entry, denied an application or failed to afford the relief which the applicant requested." (Emphasis added.) {¶7} Appellants' motion for stay and remand was not filed pursuant to App.R. 7; they did not request a stay of the judgment of the trial court pending appeal. Appellants' 2. motion asked for a stay of the proceedings in the court of appeals until the trial court rules on their Civ.R. 60(B) motion. {¶8} Accordingly, the motion to reconsider our May 25, 2011 decision remanding this case to the trial court for it to rule on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion and staying the proceedings in this court until a ruling has been made, is not well-taken and it is denied. MOTION DENIED. Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. ______________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio's Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court's web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6. 3.
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.
