The Lake Ski I-80, Inc. v. Habowski
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as The Lake Ski I-80, Inc. v. Habowski, 2015-Ohio-1074.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO THE LAKE SKI I-80, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, : MEMORANDUM OPINION : : CASE NO. 2015-T-0002 - vs : WALTER HABOWSKI, et al., : Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee. : Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CV 01340. Judgment: Cross-appeal dismissed. Thomas C. Nader, Nader & Nader, 5000 East Market Street, #33, Warren, OH 44484 (For Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant). Ronald J. Habowski, Christley, Herington & Pierce, 215 West Garfield Road, #230, Aurora, OH 44202 (For Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee). COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} On January 15, 2015, appellant/cross-appellee, Walter Habowski, filed a notice of appeal from a December 18, 2014 entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee/cross-appellant, The Lake Ski I-80, Inc., filed a cross-appeal on January 28, 2015. {¶2} App.R. 4(B)(1) states that “[i]f a notice of appeal is timely filed by a party, another party may file a notice of appeal within the appeal time period otherwise prescribed by this rule or within ten days of the filing of the first notice of appeal.” {¶3} Under App.R. 4(B)(1), Lake Ski had the option of filing its cross-appeal within ten days of appellant filing his notice of appeal, or the traditional thirty-day window created by App.R. 4(A). Thus, pursuant to the foregoing rules, the latest that Lake Ski could have filed its cross-appeal was January 26, 2015. The record in this matter indicates that Lake Ski filed its cross-appeal with this court on January 28, 2015, two days beyond the required time limit of App.R. 4(B)(1). {¶4} The time requirements for filing a cross-appeal pursuant to App.R. 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Kaplysh v. Takieddine, 35 Ohio St.3d 170 (1988) . See also, Miller v. Miller, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0061, 2009-Ohio-4455, at ¶2. As a result, this court cannot address the merits of Lake Ski’s untimely cross-appeal as it lacks jurisdiction under App.R. 4. {¶5} Based upon the foregoing analysis, the cross-appeal is hereby, sua sponte, dismissed for untimeliness. However, the appeal filed by appellant may proceed. {¶6} Cross-appeal dismissed. TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., concur. 2
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.
