RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - Supreme Court

RULE 58.Entry of Judgment(A)Preparation; entry; effect; approval.(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(B), upon a general verdict of a jury, upona decision announced, or upon the determination of a periodic payment plan, thecourt shall promptly cause the judgment to be prepared and, the court havingsigned it, the clerk shall thereupon enter it upon the journal. A judgment iseffective only when entered by the clerk upon the journal.(2) Approval of a judgment entry by counsel or a party indicates that the entrycorrectly sets forth the verdict, decision, or determination of the court and does notwaive any objection or assignment of error for appeal.(B) Notice of filing. When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereona direction to the clerk to serve upon all parties not in default for failure to appear notice of thejudgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Within three days of entering the judgment uponthe journal, the clerk shall serve the parties in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B) and note theservice in the appearance docket. Upon serving the notice and notation of the service in theappearance docket, the service is complete. The failure of the clerk to serve notice does notaffect the validity of the judgment or the running of the time for appeal except as provided inApp.R. 4(A).(C)Costs. Entry of the judgment shall not be delayed for the taxing of costs.[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 ofRule 7(B) of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio. The provision is moreappropriately 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 Courtof Appeals in Paletta v. Paletta (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 507. In Paletta, the court of appeals heldthat the appellant waived any objection to the judgment of the trial court when his attorney signeda 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 toacknowledge its receipt. The 1995 amendment indicates that a party’s approval of a proposedjudgment entry only reflects agreement that the entry correctly sets forth the decision of the courtand does not constitute a waiver of any error or objection for purposes of appeal.