FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2015-07-3661
BRADLEY HULL, IV, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DOLORES HOVAN, pro se, Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. SCHAFER, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Jacqueline L. Sutton, appeals from the
judgment entered against her in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas on the cross-claim of
Cross-claimant/Defendant-Appellee, Dolores Hovan. For the
reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.
This matter initiated with a complaint in foreclosure filed
by the bank, Third Federal Savings and Loan, on July 22,
2015. The bank named Jacqueline L. Sutton as a primary
defendant in the foreclosure action. The bank also named
Dolores P. Hovan as a defendant claiming an interest in the
property. Ms. Sutton was served with the complaint, but
failed to enter an appearance in the action.
On September 8, 2015, Ms. Hovan filed an answer to the
complaint and asserted a cross-claim against Ms. Sutton. The
cross-claim demanded judgment against Ms. Sutton in the
amount of $96, 000.000 based on Ms. Hovan's interest in
the subject property of the foreclosure memorialized in a
recorded agreement between Ms. Hovan, Ms. Sutton, and Ms.
Sutton's deceased husband, Robert. She served Ms. Sutton
with the cross-claim by publication as of November 13, 2015.
Ms. Hovan initially moved for default judgment on November
17, 2015. However, the trial court overruled that motion as
premature because, although Ms. Sutton had been served with
the cross-claim, her time to respond to the pleading had not
yet run. On December 29, 2015, Ms. Hovan again moved for
default judgment. The trial court entered judgment and issued
a decree of foreclosure on January 13, 2016, and also granted
default judgment in favor of Ms. Hovan on her cross-claim
against Ms. Sutton.
Thereafter, on January 28, 2016, Ms. Sutton attempted to
appear by counsel and sought leave to file an answer to the
cross-claim. The trial court denied the motion on February 3,
2016, indicating that judgment had already been granted.
On February 2, 2016, Ms. Sutton filed a "motion to
vacate partially void judgment" asserting that Ms.
Hovan's application for default was not served on Ms.
Sutton. After this Court dismissed an attempted appeal for
lack of a final appealable order, the trial court issued an
order denying Ms. Sutton's motion to vacate on March 25,
2016. The subject property then sold at sheriffs sale and
that sale was confirmed on April 15, 2016.
Ms. Sutton filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B) on November 28, 2016. In this motion, Ms.
Sutton argued that she should be relieved from judgment on
the grounds of fraud under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and,
alternatively, for other reasons justifying relief under
Civ.R. 60(B)(5). The trial court denied this motion in an
order dated December 21, 2016. Ms. Sutton again attempted to
appeal the matter to this Court. On June 6, 2017, this Court
again dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable
order regarding the judgment entered against Ms. Sutton
The trial court entered a "final and appealable"
judgment entry on August 4, 2017. In the judgment entry, the
trial court ordered that Ms. Hovan is entitled to judgment
against Ms. Sutton, personally, in the amount of $96, 000.00,
plus interest at the applicable statutory rate from the date
of January 13, 2016, until the judgment is paid. The trial
court denied Ms. Hovan's request for attorney fees. The
trial court also reaffirmed its prior decisions of March 24,
2016, denying Ms. Sutton's motion to vacate, and of
December 21, 2016, denying Ms. Sutton's motion for relief
Ms. Sutton has timely appealed the final judgment entered,
raising three ...