Fleenor v. Karr
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Fleenor v. Karr, 2012-Ohio-3402.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PIKE COUNTY
RAE L. FLEENOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHARON H. KARR,
Defendant-Appellee.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: 10CA814
DECISION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Filed: July 24, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Jason Shugart and D. Dale Seif, Jr., Seif & Shugart, LLC, Waverly, Ohio, for Appellant.
Stephen C. Rodeheffer, Rodeheffer and Miller, Ltd., Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellee.
Kline, J.:
{¶1}
This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio, which reversed
the decision we made in Fleenor v. Karr, 196 Ohio App.3d 555, 2011-Ohio-5706, 964
N.E.2d 480 (4th Dist.). See Fleenor v. Karr, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2012-Ohio-1578, --N.E.2d ----. On remand, the Supreme Court of Ohio has instructed us to apply Havel v.
Villa St. Joseph, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552, 963 N.E.2d 1270. See Fleenor,
2012-Ohio-1578, at ¶ 1. Accordingly, we now find that R.C. 2315.21(B) is constitutional,
and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
{¶2}
On September 28, 2007, Rae L. Fleenor (hereinafter “Fleenor”) filed a
complaint against Sharon H. Karr (hereinafter “Karr”). After Fleenor requested punitive
Pike App. No. 10CA814
2
damages, Karr filed a motion to “bifurcate the trial on damages in accordance with R.C.
§2315.21.” Specifically, Karr requested that “the initial phase of the trial in this matter
deal solely with the issues of liability and compensatory damages, if any. [And] in the
event the jury returns a verdict as required in §2315.21(B)(1)(b)[,] that the issue of
punitive damages be tried in a second stage.” Eventually, the trial court granted Karr’s
motion to bifurcate.
{¶3}
Fleenor appeals from the trial court’s decision to bifurcate the trial in
accordance with R.C. 2315.21(B). In her appellate brief, Fleenor asserts the following
two assignments of error: I. “The trial court committed reversible error by holding R.C.
§2315.21(B)(1) is constitutional, when R.C. §2315.21(B)(1) eliminates the judicial
discretion whether to bifurcate a trial into two phases pursuant to Civ.R.42(B) under the
authority of the Modern Courts Amendment of 1968, Section 5(B), and Article IV of the
Ohio Constitution.” And II. “The trial court committed reversible error by violating Ohio’s
separation of powers doctrine when the Court determined the procedural matter of
bifurcation of trial was governed by R.C. §2315.21(B)(1) instead of Civ.R. 42(B).”
II.
{¶4}
In our first Fleenor opinion, we found “that R.C. 2315.21(B) is procedural
and, therefore, unconstitutional.” Fleenor, 196 Ohio App.3d 555, 2011-Ohio-5706, 964
N.E.2d 480, at ¶ 19. As a result, we sustained Fleenor’s assignments of error and
reversed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at ¶ 22. The Supreme Court of Ohio, however,
found the following:
R.C. 2315.21(B) creates a substantive right to bifurcation in
tort actions when claims for compensatory and punitive
Pike App. No. 10CA814
3
damages have been asserted. Thus, R.C. 2315.21(B)
creates, defines, and regulates a substantive, enforceable
right to separate stages of trial relating to the presentation of
evidence for compensatory and punitive damages in tort
actions and therefore takes precedence over Civ.R. 42(B)
and does not violate the Ohio Constitution, Article IV,
Section 5(B). Havel, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552,
963 N.E.2d 1270, at ¶ 36.
{¶5}
The Supreme Court of Ohio has instructed us to apply Havel. See
Fleenor, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2012-Ohio-1578, --- N.E.2d ----, at ¶ 1. Accordingly, we now
find that R.C. 2315.21(B) is substantive and, therefore, constitutional. As a result, we
overrule Fleenor’s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Pike App. No. 10CA814
4
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED. Appellant shall pay the 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
Pike County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion.
For the Court
BY:_____________________________
Roger L. Kline, 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.
