Background
Geico Advantage Insurance Company sued Terricko Clyde Early and Jasmine A. Williams for negligent entrustment, seeking subrogation for losses arising from an automobile accident involving Geico’s insured. After an earlier dismissal without prejudice, Geico refiled the action in September 2024. It later dismissed Williams, while Early—who had been served—filed a pro se answer.
Early did not respond to Geico’s discovery requests or oppose its summary-judgment motion. Geico argued that his failure to answer requests for admissions established, among other things, that he negligently entrusted a vehicle to a driver involved in the accident. The trial court entered unopposed summary judgment for Geico for $35,344.56 in July 2025. Early did not appeal. In November, represented by counsel, Early moved under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B)(5) to vacate the judgment, but submitted no affidavits or other evidence. The trial court granted the motion without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District vacated the order granting Early relief from judgment. It held that whether a court may grant a Rule 60(B) motion without supporting evidentiary material is a legal question reviewed de novo, and that Early failed to establish entitlement to relief.
A Rule 60(B) movant must show a meritorious claim or defense, grounds for relief under the rule, and a timely motion. The court explained that a movant must support those elements with evidentiary material containing operative facts; unsworn assertions in the motion are insufficient. Because Early presented no supporting evidence and the trial court held no evidentiary hearing, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in granting his motion. It sustained Geico’s second assignment of error and found the remaining assignments moot.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking Rule 60(B) relief must support the motion with evidence, not merely unsworn factual assertions.
- A trial court should hold a hearing when a Rule 60(B) motion alleges operative facts that could warrant relief.
- Failure to prove any element of Ohio’s Rule 60(B) test requires denial of the motion.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary burden on parties asking Ohio courts to reopen final judgments. Counsel cannot rely solely on allegations in a postjudgment motion to establish a meritorious defense or another basis for relief.
For litigants facing an unopposed summary judgment, the ruling also underscores that a later Rule 60(B) motion requires admissible support and does not succeed merely because the trial court elects to reconsider its earlier judgment.