MJ Property Holdings, L.L.C. v. Marincek

[Cite as MJ Property Holdings, L.L.C. v. Marincek, 2026-Ohio-4441.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY MJ PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. CASE NO. 2026-L-0037 d.b.a. MIDWEST ETHANOL, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas - vs - SCOTT A. MARINCEK, Trial Court No. 2025 FJ 000008 Defendant-Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: November 9, 2026 Judgment: Appeal dismissed Christopher M. Wolcott, Taft Stettinius & Hollister L.L.P., 40 North Main Street, Suite 900, Dayton, OH 45423 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Andrew P. Lycans, and Eric T. Michener, Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston, LTD., 225 North Market Street, P.O. Box 599, Wooster, OH 44691 (For Defendant-Appellant). ROBERT J. PATTON, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Scott A. Marincek (“Marincek”), appeals from the trial court’s decision denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) and domesticating one of several judgments obtained in a Minnesota case in favor of plaintiff- appellee, MJ Property Holdings, L.L.C. d.b.a. Midwest Ethanol, L.L.C. (“MJ Property Holdings”). {¶2} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment and decree of foreclosure is not a final appealable order. The appeal is dismissed.  Substantive and Procedural Facts {¶3} On March 20, 2023, the Fourth Judicial District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota entered a default judgment in favor of MJ Property Holdings, the judgment- creditor and against Marincek and Solv-All Alliance Group, LLC in MJ Property Holdings, LLC d/b/a Midwest Ethanol, LLC v. Solv-All Alliance Group, LLC and Scott A Marincek, Court File No. 27-CV-22-15199 ("Minnesota Case"). {¶4} According to MJ Property Holdings, the Fourth Judicial District Court further granted MJ Property Holdings’ Motion for Attorneys' Fees on May 28, 2024. An amended order for attorney fees was filed on July 22, 2024. The trial court also granted MJ Property Holdings motion for summary judgment on May 20, 2025, and awarded costs and attorneys’ fees on June 18, 2025, and on October 13, 2025. {¶5} On November 24, 2025, MJ Property Holdings filed a Registration of a Foreign Judgment in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. The foreign judgment was a judgment obtained in the Minnesota Case and totaled $534,099.71. On December 29, 2025, Marincek filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). In its response to Marincek’s filing, MJ Property Holdings filed a notice of intent to amend the registration and a motion to stay to obtain copies of the authenticated foreign judgments on January 7, 2026. An amended affidavit was filed in supplement to MJ Property Holding’s initial registration on February 2, 2026. The trial court denied Marincek’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion as moot on February 18, 2026. {¶6} The following day, on February 19, 2026, Marincek filed a second motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) on the grounds that the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the award of summary judgment in the Minnesota Case and PAGE 2 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037 remanded the case back to Hennepin County. On March 5, 2026, MJ Property Holding’s opposed the motion. In its response, MJ Property Holdings contended that multiple judgments totaling $75,244.92 were not overturned by the Minnesota appellate court and remain valid judgments. Marincek filed a reply in support of his second Civ.R. 60(B) motion on March 10, 2026. {¶7} The trial court denied Marincek’s motion but stayed execution of the judgments on all of the foreign judgments except for the June 18, 2025 judgment in the Minnesota Case amounting to $37,865.02. Specifically, the trial court stated: The judgments domesticated by Plaintiff consist of the order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on liability, an order granting attorney's fees to Plaintiff in connection with moving for summary judgment, and orders granting attorney's fees to Plaintiff as a discovery sanction against Defendant. Defendant argues that because the discovery sanctions are interim orders under Ohio law the court should find that all of the judgments are unenforceable in Ohio. Plaintiff argues that execution on the judgment granting summary judgment should be stayed pending final resolution, and that the attorney's fees awards are separate orders that survive the reversal. It appears to this court that the Minnesota court reduced at least one of the discovery sanctions against Defendant to a final, appealable order that was not addressed in the reversal. Accordingly, execution on the June 18, 2025 judgment entry awarding $37,865.02 to Plaintiff is not stayed, and execution on the remaining judgment entries is stayed. The Appeal {¶8} Marincek raises three assignments of error for review: [1.] The trial court erred in allowing Creditor-Appellee MJ to domesticate a Minnesota trial court’s discovery sanction of $37,865.02 in Ohio based on the conclusion that the discovery sanction appeared to have been reduced to a final, appealable order separate and apart from the judgment on the merits.… PAGE 3 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037  [2.] The trial court erred in allowing Creditor-Appellee MJ to proceed with efforts to domesticate what it now describes as six independent judgments in a single domestication filing based upon the determination that Debtor-Appellant Marincek should have anticipated that MJ would argue that. . . each order it attached and presented as part of a single unitary judgment for $534,099.71 was actually a separate judgment capable of being domesticated such that Marincek should have addressed this issue prior to MJ making the argument…. [3.] The trial court erred in staying, rather than dismissing, the domestication action after the final order which Appellee sought to domesticate was reversed on appeal in the issuing state based upon its conclusion that domestication proceedings may be stayed at the request of the creditor to allow the creditor to attempt to obtain a final, appealable order capable of domestication in Ohio…. {¶9} As a preliminary matter, before addressing Marincek’s assignments of error, we must first determine whether the trial court’s entry is a final appealable order. {¶10} According to Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2), a judgment of a trial court can be immediately reviewed by an appellate court only if it constitutes a “final order” in the action. Bank of Am. v. Telerico, 2017-Ohio-1339, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.), citing In re Estate of Biddlestone, 2011-Ohio-1299, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.). A reviewing court has no jurisdiction to review the matter if the lower court’s order is not final, and the matter must be dismissed. Id., citing Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). “For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B).” Id. {¶11} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order as one of the following: (1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment; PAGE 4 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037  (2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment; (3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial; (4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both of the following apply: (a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect to the provisional remedy. (b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action. (5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained as a class action; (6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes to the Revised Code . . . ; (7) An order in an appropriation proceeding . . . .” {¶12} Civ.R. 54(B) states in pertinent part: “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action . . . and . . . when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” {¶13} This court has stated that where multiple claims and/or parties are involved, an order entering final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all of the claims or parties, is not a final appealable order in the absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language stating PAGE 5 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037 that “there is no just reason for delay. . . .” Walker v. Walker, 2025-Ohio-1597, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.), citing Harris v. Kirtland, 2024-Ohio-1743, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.). {¶14} MJ Property Holdings requested to domesticate several foreign judgments issued in the Minnesota Case pursuant to R.C 2329.021 et seq. The parties do not dispute that the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on summary judgment in the Minnesota Case and that the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court determined that the reversal and remand disturbed all but one judgment which contained an award of $37,865.02. The trial court stayed execution of the remaining judgments in this case, and in so doing has left claims unresolved. The entry did not include any Civ.R. 54(B) language or a finding that there was no just cause for delay. {¶15} Therefore, we conclude that the judgment entry subject to this appeal is not a final appealable order as it does not dispose of all the claims and does not include Civ.R.54(B) language. {¶16} Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. Conclusion {¶17} The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. MATT LYNCH, P.J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur. PAGE 6 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037  JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. Costs to be taxed against appellant. JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. PAGE 7 OF 7 Case No. 2026-L-0037