Kaine v. Kaine
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Kaine v. Kaine, 2024-Ohio-1573.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JEFFERSON COUNTY STACEY KAINE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD KAINE, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 23 JE 0008 Motion for Leave to Request Civ.R. 60(A) Correction Case No. 16 DR 308 BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges. JUDGMENT: Overruled. Atty. Francesca T. Carinci, for Plaintiff-Appellee Atty. Danielle C. Kulik, for Defendant-Appellant Dated: April 5, 2024 –2– PER CURIAM {¶1} Appellant Ronald Kaine has filed a “Motion for Leave to Request Civ.R. 60(A) Correction” in our Opinion in Kaine v. Kaine, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 23 JE 0008, 2023-Ohio-4743. Appellant contends that a clerical error exists within that Opinion pertaining to the amount this Court awarded for damage to a front door and threshold. No other challenges to our Opinion are raised within the motion. Appellee Stacey Kaine has not filed a response. {¶2} Civ.R. 60(A) addresses clerical mistakes and provides that: “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court. {¶3} The rule is designed to correct clerical mistakes made within a trial court entry. While the appellate process is referenced within the rule, the rule itself does not apply to appellate courts. It provides that a trial court’s clerical errors may be corrected at any time before an appeal is docketed in the appellate court, or thereafter with leave first obtained from the appellate court. It does not, however, provide a mechanism to Case No. 23 JE 0008 –3– correct an alleged clerical error in an appellate Opinion or order. No parallel rule exists within the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, Appellant’s motion is overruled. JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE JUDGE MARK A. HANNI NOTICE TO COUNSEL This document constitutes a final judgment entry. Case No. 23 JE 0008
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
