Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Ohio App. 3d 448

457 N.E.2d 911

Kelm v. Hess

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 1983

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1983-02-08

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Where a final judgment orders the payment of money, and the order is not stayed but instead complied with by voluntary payment of the amount ordered, an appeal from the order will be dismissed as moot since reversal of the order would be ineffectual in affording any relief to the appellant.” Kelrn v. Hess (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 448 , 8 OBR 572, 457 N.E.2d 911 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Kevin O'Brien Associates v. Baum, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004), 118 Ohio App. 3d 251 - Poppa Builders, Inc. v. Campbell

““ ‘Although appellant apparently paid the judgment under threat of garnishment, a pending garnishment would not render payment involuntary, in view of appellant’s entitlement to a stay of the trial court’s judgment as a matter of law, upon giving adequate bond. State, ex rel. Ocasek v. Riley (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490 [ 8 O.O.3d 466, 467 , 377 N.E.2d 792, 793 ]. Since appellant was in a financial position to pay the judgment, she undoubtedly would been able to give an adequate appeal bond.’ ” Fifth Third Bank, at 4, quoting Kelm v. Hess (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 448 , 8 OBR 572, 457 N.E.2d 911 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 105 Ohio App. 3d 780 - Hagood v. Gail

Relies on 116 Ohio St. 361 - Lynch v. Board of Education · 54 Ohio St. 2d 488 - State ex rel. Ocasek v. Riley · 21 Ohio App. 2d 38 - Favret Co. v. West

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-02-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2019

21 state decisions

1101983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Norris, J.

¶1 In oral argument, it was agreed by the parties that the trial court’s judgment had been paid and satisfied in full. Where a final judgment orders the payment of money, and the order is not stayed but instead complied with by voluntary payment of the amount ordered, an appeal from the order will be dismissed as moot since reversal of the order would be ineffectual in affording any relief to the appellant. In re Appropriation for Highway Purposes (1959), 169 Ohio St. 314, 316 [8 O.O.2d 315]; State, ex rel. Smith, v. Baker (1954), 160 Ohio St. 526 [52 O.O. 389]; Lynch v. Bd. of Edn. (1927), 116 Ohio St. 361, paragraph three of the syllabus; see, also, Favret Co. v. West (1970), 21 Ohio App.2d 38.

¶2 Although appellant apparently paid the judgment under threat of garnishment, a pending garnishment would not render payment involuntary, in view of appellant’s entitlement to a stay of the trial court’s judgment as a matter of right, upon giving adequate bond. State, ex rel. Ocasek, v. Riley (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490 [8 O.O.3d 466]. Since appellant was in a financial position to pay the judgment, she undoubtedly would have been able to give an adequate appeal bond.

¶3 The questions raised by the appeal being moot, the appeal is dismissed.

¶4 Appeal dismissed.

Reilly and McCormac, JJ., concur.
/8/ohioapp3d/448 · .json · Public domain