In other words, a trial court may find that a motion is not filed within a reasonable time, notwithstanding that it was filed within one year, if the court concludes that the time taken to file the motion was not reasonable under the circumstances. Tankersley v. Scales, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26299, 2014-Ohio-4964, ¶ 16, citing Doyle v. Doyle, 2d Dist. Greene No. 97 CA 143, 1998 WL 698360, * 3 (Oct. 9, 1998) and Morris v. Grubb, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 15177, 1996 WL 132202, * 4 (March 8, 1996), appeal not allowed, 76 Ohio St.3d 1478, 669 N.E.2d 860 (1996). {¶ 11} Motions for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Griffey, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 514 N.E.2d 1122; National City Mtge. Co. v. Johnson & Assoc. Financial Services, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21164, 2006-Ohio-2364, ¶ 11.
Failure to demonstrate that requirement mandates the denial of the relief requested.Morris v. Grubb, [2d Dist. Montgomery No. 15177,1996 WL 132202, * 4 (March 8, 1996)], appeal not allowed, 76 Ohio St.3d 1478, 669 N.E.2d 860 * * *The appellate court in Morris found that "the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Civ.R. 60(B) relief" to a plaintiff who filed her
This Court has previously considered cases where claimants sought to invoke similar language in an insurance policy and determined that coverage was properly denied. See Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 87, 90; Spoerndle v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (June 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 19289, unreported, vacated (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 542; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright (June 5, 1996), Lorain App. No. 95CA006190, unreported, appeal not allowed (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 1478. In Spoerndle and Wright this Court reviewed the UM/UIM provisions of Nationwide, and found that the policy lawfully excepted from coverage those relatives who did not regularly live with the policy holder.
We have previously held that the appearance of new counsel before the Supreme Court of Ohio supports a conclusion that res judicata bars an application for reopening. See, e.g., State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793, appeal dismissed (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 1478 [Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. 96-1708]; State v. Rios(July 18, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58934, unreported, reopening disallowed (Sept. 18, 1995), Motion No. 66129. Yet, just as appellate counsel could not be expected to raise an issue on appeal as to his or her own effectiveness at trial, appellate counsel would not be expected to raise as an issue before the Supreme Court of Ohio his own ineffectiveness on appeal.