Background
Howell Tax Accounting, Inc. and the Estate of Beth Evelyn Howell sued Scott Monto, Dan Szymczak, The Monto Group, LLC, and Legacy Tax Advisory Group, LLC. The complaint alleged six counts: declaratory judgment, further relief, equitable relief, anticipatory repudiation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The appellants sought, among other remedies, a constructive trust.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the constructive trust claim only, dismissing Count 3 of the complaint. The trial court issued a decision and entry dated December 2, 2025, that included Civil Rule 54(B) language stating “This is a final order. There is no just cause for delay.” After the appellants appealed, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc decision and entry on January 28, 2026, removing the Civil Rule 54(B) language.
The defendants then moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court’s judgment was not final and appealable because underlying claims remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction because the trial court’s judgment is not a final, appealable order under Ohio Revised Code § 2505.02(B)(1). A judgment must dispose of the whole merits of a cause or some separate and distinct branch thereof and leave nothing for the determination of the court.
The court emphasized that a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action. By dismissing only the constructive trust remedy, the trial court left all of the appellants’ underlying causes of action—declaratory judgment, anticipatory repudiation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment—still pending. Because the judgment did not dispose of a separate and distinct branch of the case, it did not qualify as final and appealable.
The court further held that the trial court’s removal of the Civil Rule 54(B) language in the nunc pro tunc decision was irrelevant. The Civ.R. 54(B) certification only matters if a judgment already qualifies as final under Ohio law. Since the December 2, 2025 judgment was not final under the applicable statute, the 54(B) language—or its removal—does not cure that defect.
Key Takeaways
- Dismissal of a specific remedy does not render a judgment final and appealable if underlying causes of action remain pending.
- Courts must distinguish between remedies and causes of action; a constructive trust is an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment, not an independent claim.
- Civil Rule 54(B) certification is only relevant if the underlying judgment already qualifies as final under statutory requirements.
- Piecemeal appeals of partial dismissals are not permitted when substantial portions of the litigation remain unresolved.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ohio’s strict requirements for what constitutes a final, appealable order. The distinction between remedies and causes of action is critical: a litigant cannot appeal a trial court’s rejection of one remedy when the underlying legal claims are still being litigated. This protects judicial efficiency by preventing premature appeals and ensuring that appellate courts review only truly final judgments.
The opinion clarifies that procedural formalities like Civil Rule 54(B) language cannot cure a judgment’s fundamental lack of finality under Ohio law. Practitioners must ensure that trial court orders resolve all pending claims or all distinct branches of a case before appealing, or risk having their appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.