TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fleming v. Mante

Fleming v. Mante, 10 F.R.D. 391 (N.D. Ohio 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 23, 1950
Docket
No. Civ. No. 23869
Judges
Jones
Citations
10 F.R.D. 3911950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3669

Opinion of the Court — Jones

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (6), Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.

The action, one seeking treble damages for violation of the rent control act, was originally filed March 22, 1946. On January 16, 1947 a default judgment was entered in the sum of $1,608.00 and costs. On March 26, 1949, plaintiff made the judgment a lien upon the real property of the defendants.

At the time the action was filed Tony Mante was a patient in a tuberculosis sanatorium and he was not released until October, 1946. His wife was for part of this time supported by relief. However, the defendants did retain an attorney who filed an answer for them. In October, 1946, plaintiff’s attorney sent the defendants’ attorney a card with reference to setting this case for trial. In answer the defendants’ attorney said that he was. no longer retained by defendants and “if you wish to take a default judgment on the matter there is nothing that I can do about it. These people are penniless and unable to pay any attorney fee.” The record does not show that the request for trial card was subsequently sent to the defendants or that they had knowledge of the date of trial, and under this court’s rules the action should not have been placed on the trial calendar. The defendants’ failure to appear and the consequent default judgment were undoubtedly the result of the letter of an attorney who did not represent the defendants, and perhaps the Government’s too eager acquiescence in the suggestion of this attorney.

It is true that three years have passed since the judgme'nt was entered. However, the notice of judgment which defendants received probably meant nothing to them, and the Government’s failure to take any steps to enforce the judgment quite likely led defendants to believe that they were not liable in any way. It is also likely that this motion was filed soon after defendants learned of the judgment lien on their land. In any event, it is never too late to set aside an unjust judgment.

Defendants have offered to pay the amount of single damages, and the Court is willing to accept such compromise. If, however, plaintiff refuses this offer, the judgment of January 16, 1947 will be set aside.

Enter order accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 11979: 11984: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Graham v. Schreifer467 N.E.2d 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Williams v. Cal Industries, International (In re Ireco Industries, Inc.)2 B.R. 76 (Bankr. D. Or. 1979)
  3. Crane v. Kerr53 F.R.D. 311 (N.D. Ga. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Graham v. Schreifer467 N.E.2d 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Williams v. Cal Industries, International (In re Ireco Industries, Inc.)2 B.R. 76 (Bankr. D. Or. 1979)
  3. Crane v. Kerr53 F.R.D. 311 (N.D. Ga. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list