More Categories

Rule 58 – Entry of Judgment

May 14, 2021 | Civil Procedure, Ohio

(A) Preparation; entry; effect; approval.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(B), upon a general verdict of a jury, upon a decision announced, or upon the determination of a periodic payment plan, the court shall promptly cause the judgment to be prepared and, the court having signed it, the clerk shall thereupon enter it upon the journal. A judgment is effective only when entered by the clerk upon the journal.
(2) Approval of a judgment entry by counsel or a party indicates that the entry correctly sets forth the verdict, decision, or determination of the court and does not waive any objection or assignment of error for appeal.
(B) Notice of filing. When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereon a direction to the clerk to serve upon all parties not in default for failure to appear notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Within three days of entering the judgment upon the journal, the clerk shall serve the parties in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B) and note the service in the appearance docket. Upon serving the notice and notation of the service in the appearance docket, the service is complete. The failure of the clerk to serve notice does not affect the validity of the judgment or the running of the time for appeal except as provided in App.R. 4(A).
(C) Costs. Entry of the judgment shall not be delayed for the taxing of costs.

Ohio. Civ.R. 58

Effective:July 1, 1970; amended effective July 1, 1971;July 1, 1989;July 1, 2012.

Staff Note (July 1, 2012 Amendment)

Division (A) has been subdivided in order to add Civ.R. 58(A)(2) which is a restatement of Rule 7(B) of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio. The provision is more appropriately included within the civil rules governing the conduct of actions.

The July 1, 1997 Commentary to Sup. R. 7 stated in pertinent part:

[T]he rule was added in 1995 and is intended to address the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Paletta v. Paletta (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 507. In Paletta, the court of appeals held that the appellant waived any objection to the judgment of the trial court when his attorney signed a proposed judgment entry and failed to file objections as required by local rule of court, notwithstanding the attorney’s assertion that he did not intend to approve the entry but only to acknowledge its receipt. The 1995 amendment indicates that a party’s approval of a proposed judgment entry only reflects agreement that the entry correctly sets forth the decision of the court and does not constitute a waiver of any error or objection for purposes of appeal.