DocketNumber: No. 2005-T-0087.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 2020
Judges: DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
Filed Date: 4/21/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} This appeal stems from a judgment issued by the trial court on April 26, 2005, which granted judgment for the Council and against Appellee herein, Sean W. McCarty,1 d.b.a. MG Interiors, on the Council's claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The judgment was entered following a proceeding in which both parties stipulated to bifurcate proceedings. Following a hearing, the court determined that appellee was liable under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and left the issue of damages for later determination. Appellee timely appealed the April 26, 2005 judgment with this court on May 26, 2005.
{¶ 3} On June 15, 2005, the Council filed a Motion to Tax Costs, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(D). In its motion, the Council sought to recover court costs and "necessary litigating expenses" in the amount of $229.70, which included a witness fee in the amount of $15.20 and transcript costs in the amount of $214.50. On June 24, 2005, the trial court denied the Council's motion. This appeal followed, in which the Council assigns the following as error:
{¶ 4} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of Plaintiff-Appellant when it denied its motion to tax costs."
{¶ 5} Motions to assess costs are governed by Civ.R. 54(D) which provides:
{¶ 6} "Except when express provision therefore is made either in a statute or in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs."
{¶ 7} "Under Ohio law `a trial court is empowered to award costs only to a prevailing party.'" Estate of Lehto v. Sankey,
11th Dist. No. 99-T-0137, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2959, at *20, quoting Hagemeyer v. Sadowski (1993),
{¶ 8} On March 17, 2006, the Council filed a motion to dismiss Court of Appeals Case No. 2005-T-0063. In its motion, the Council argued that the appealed judgment only addresses the issue of liability and does not resolve the issues of damages and is, therefore, not a final appealable order under R.C.
{¶ 9} Issues pertaining to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a court sua sponte at any stage in the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. Statev. Pruitt, 11th Dist. No. 2001-T-0121, 2002-Ohio-7164, at ¶ 29 citing In re Graham,
{¶ 10} Appeal dismissed.
O'Neill, J., O'Toole, J. concur.