Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
MARY J. VANCE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
CAROL L. CIBELLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case
No. 2018 CV 00239.
Reversed and remanded.
M. Burkey and James R. Scher, Burkey, Burkey & Scher Co.,
L.P.A., 200 Chestnut Avenue, N.E., Warren, Ohio 44483 (For
Michael D. Rossi, Guarnieri & Secrest, PLL, 151 East
Market Street, P.O. Box 4270, Warren, Ohio 44482 (For
R. WRIGHT, P.J.
Appellant, Carol L. Cibella, appeals the trial court's
decision denying her motion for relief from judgment. Cibella
and appellee, Mary Vance, own adjacent real property.
Vance's dwelling, situated predominantly on her property,
slightly encroaches on Cibella's property. Vance filed
suit for adverse possession, among other things, and the case
was eventually settled pursuant to an agreed judgment entry
granting Vance partial summary judgment and dismissing her
other claims. Cibella sought relief from the parties'
amended agreed judgment entry arguing that the agreement
authorized a conveyance of more property than they had
agreed, and the trial court improperly denied her motion. For
the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Cibella raises one assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion
for relief from judgment."
Cibella argues the trial court abused its discretion in
failing to grant her motion for relief from judgment.
Cibella's motion seeks relief pursuant to subsections
(B)(1) and (B)(3). She claims that it is evident that there
is a mistake or misconduct by Vance warranting relief from
the parties' agreed judgment because the documents
attached to the agreed judgment and the amended agreed
judgment convey more property to Vance than was agreed to by
In response, Vance urges affirmance claiming that any mistake
was that of Cibella's counsel alone, and as such, Civ.R.
60(B) relief is not warranted. Vance argues that the parcel
to be conveyed via adverse possession included the overhang
of the house and the six feet surrounding the encroachment to
access the property for mowing and access to wash and repair
the home. A plain language description of this nature
conveying this additional six feet, however, is not present
in the body of the parties' agreed judgment entry or the
Vance argues that Cibella's problem arose because her
attorney failed to comprehend the conveyance documents. And
because he failed to understand and adequately explain the
documents to Cibella, there was no mutual mistake of fact
warranting relief from judgment.
The trial court denied Cibella's motion without
We review appeals from a denied motion for relief from
judgment for an abuse of discretion. State ex rel.
Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d
1134 (1996), citing Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams,
36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988). An abuse of
discretion connotes judgment exercised by the trial court
that does not comport with reason or the record. Ivancic
v. Enos, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-050, 2012-Ohio-3639,
978 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 70.
"When an appellate court is reviewing a pure issue of
law, 'the mere fact that the reviewing court would decide
the issue differently is enough to find error (of course, not
all errors are reversible. Some are harmless; others are not
preserved for appellate review). By contrast, where the issue
on review has been confined to the discretion of the trial
court, the mere fact that the reviewing court would have
reached a different result is not enough, without more, to