Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Henderson v. Brost Foundry Co.
Citations: 598 N.E.2d 62; 74 Ohio App. 3d 78; 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1978Docket: No. 58479.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; May 13, 1991; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Brost Foundry Company appealed a decision from the Industrial Commission of Ohio to the court of common pleas. The trial court dismissed the case as settled on August 14, 1989, and denied the appellant's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 21, 1989. Brost filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 1989, which was beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed by App.R. 4(A) for filing an appeal from the journal entry dismissing the case. The appellant argued that the appeal period should begin from the denial of its motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the court determined that the motion must be authorized by Civ.R. 52, which does not apply when a court grants a motion to dismiss as it does not act as a factfinder. Consequently, the appeal was ruled outside jurisdiction due to the late filing, and the arguments regarding the dismissal and the denial of findings of fact were not considered. Civ. R. 52 applies only when factual questions are tried, which does not occur in cases that are settled and dismissed, thus negating the trial judge's role as a factfinder. Consequently, no findings of fact or conclusions of law are mandated under Civ. R. 52, preventing the appellant from filing a motion for such findings. The Ohio Supreme Court clarified that a motion for a new trial does not halt the appeal timeline if summary judgment was granted without a trial (L.A. D. v. Bd. of Commrs., 1981). The appellant’s claim for findings of fact and conclusions of law was rejected as Civ. R. 52 restricts these to specific situations, none of which applied here. Therefore, the appeal from the order settling and dismissing the case was dismissed sua sponte, while the trial court's denial of the motion for findings was affirmed. The decision noted that Matia, P.J., and Ann McManamon, J., concurred.