Cosari v. Cosari , 2023 Ohio 1126 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Cosari v. Cosari, 2023-Ohio-1126.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
BRANDY L. COSARI C.A. No. 30214
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
RAYMOND A. COSARI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2013 10 2832
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: April 5, 2023
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Raymond Cosari appeals an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, that granted Brandy Cosari’s motion for relief from judgment under
Civil Rule 60(A). For the following reasons, this Court vacates the trial court’s order.
I.
{¶2} In November 2021, the trial court held a hearing regarding the parties’ child support
obligations. According to the parties, they reached an agreement at the hearing, which they placed
on the record. Following the hearing, Mother prepared an agreed judgment entry, which the court
signed. Less than a week later, Mother moved for relief from judgment, arguing that one of the
provisions in the agreed judgment entry inadvertently did not reflect the agreement that the parties
had reached at the hearing. She also submitted a proposed amended entry, which suggested that
Father had agreed to the correction. Mother acknowledges that the proposed order incorrectly
indicated Father’s approval of the amended entry. Although Father submitted a brief that opposed
2
Mother’s motion, the trial court issued an order correcting the entry. Father has appealed,
assigning two errors.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDER CORRECTING AGREED ENTRY
OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION.
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court incorrectly granted
Mother’s motion for relief from judgment. He argues that the court ignored his brief in opposition
to the motion and did not even hold an attorney conference to confirm the parties’ positions.
According to Father, the proposed amended order that Mother submitted to the court purported to
have his signature on it, but he was never even provided a copy of it.
{¶4} Mother acknowledges that she mistakenly submitted a proposed order to the court
with a signature line indicating that Father had approved the entry. After realizing the error, she
contends that she filed a notice of mistaken submission to the court. Mother, nevertheless, argues
that the corrected judgment entry does reflect the agreement that was read into the record and notes
that Father has not had a transcript of that hearing prepared to establish what was agreed to at the
hearing.
{¶5} Civil Rule 60(A) provides, in relevant part, that “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments,
orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be
corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such
notice, if any, as the court orders.” Although Mother argues that the corrected entry reflects the
parties’ agreement, she acknowledges that she submitted a proposed order to the court that
mistakenly represented that Father had agreed to it. Because of Father’s alleged agreement, the
3
trial court may have considered his subsequent objection to the corrected entry waived. See
Berlovan v. Berlovan, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0052-M, 2015-Ohio-1245, ¶ 5 (concluding party
waived substantive challenges to judgment entry that she signed). Accordingly, upon review of
the record, we conclude that the January 6, 2022, order correcting the agreed entry must be vacated.
Father’s first assignment of error is sustained.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SETTING
THE 60(A) MOTION OF THE APPELLEE FOR A HEARING WHEN THE
ALLEGED “CLERICAL ERROR” WAS A DELIBERATELY NEGOTIATED
TERM AND APPELLEE MERELY SUFFERED FROM BUYER’S REMORSE.
{¶6} In his second assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court incorrectly
determined that its judgment entry contained a clerical error. Considering our resolution of
Father’s first assignment of error, we conclude that this argument is premature.
III.
{¶7} Father’s first assignment of error is sustained. His second assignment of error is
premature. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is
vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment vacated,
and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
4
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
STEVENSON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
CAROLYN C. SOEDER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
LESLIE S. GRASKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.