Morgan v. Jones

Syllabus

CIV.R. 59(B) — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — VACATUR — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — RECEIVERS — CIV.R. 66 — DISCHARGE OF RECEIVERS — EQUITY — DUE PROCESS — NOTICE — HEARING — RES JUDICATA — SANCTIONS — ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR: Because the trial court discharged the receiver without holding a \trial\ within the meaning of Civ.R. 59(B), defendant's motion for a new trial under that rule was a nullity, and the trial court's order denying it was void ab initio and subject to vacatur. Before discharging a receiver, the appointing court must provide interested parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Defendant-appellant was accorded adequate notice of the need to object to the receiver's discharge and adequate opportunity to do so where the receiver filed a final report indicating (1) that the purpose of the receivership had been completed, (2) that the receivership was insolvent such that it lacked funds to disburse, and (3) that the receiver's outstanding fees were settled from the proceeds of the receivership estate, and where defendant-appellant had three weeks after service of that final report to raise objections before the trial court ordered the receiver discharged. The trial court did not err by including findings regarding the good faith of its receiver and the propriety of the receiver's fees in its discharge order without first holding a hearing, where defendant did not object to the receiver's performance or fees upon the filing of the final report. Defendant-appellant's substantive arguments concerning motions and issues that could have been addressed in his prior appeals are res judicata. Although defendant-appellant's citations to fictitious cases were likely the product of the improper use of generative artificial intelligence, and although this constituted a breach of defendant-appellant's obligations to the court, the court exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions in light of (1) the lack of a local rule governing the use o