COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59753 FIDELITY LEASING COMPANY : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION ABDUL KARIM M. SILMI : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : JANUARY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court : Case No. 89-CVH-30464 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: MICHAEL HAZELWOOD, ESQ. VIOLET J. TARCAI, ESQ. JAVITCH & EISEN 1540 East 38th Street 1050 Statler Office Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44114 1127 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1694 - 2 - J.F. CORRIGAN, J., Appellant, Abdul Karim M. Silmi, appeals from the order of the Cleveland Municipal Court denying his motion to vacate judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. On October 27, 1989, the Cleveland Municipal Court received a Clerk's Certificate of Judgment from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in the case captioned Fidelity Leasing Co. v. Abdul Karim M. Silmi, case number 89-CVH-30464. This judgment, in the amount of $3,600.42, apparently originated in the court of Montgomery County, Tennessee and was transferred to Cuyahoga County and then to the Cleveland Municipal Court. On December 27, 1989, appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment in the Cleveland Municipal Court pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B). The motion was set for hearing on February 15, 1990, by the trial court. Appellant failed to appear at the hearing and his motion was denied for want of prosecution. This appeal timely follows. II. Appellant asserts the following as his sole assignment of error: "DID THE COURT ERR IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN OHIO RENDERED BY A SISTER STATE WHERE APPELLANT RAISES THE QUESTION OF NO JURISDICTION?" Generally, when a motion for relief from judgment contains allegations of operative facts which could warrant relief under Civ. R. 60(B), the trial court should grant a hearing to take - 3 - evidence before ruling on the motion. Neubauer v. Kender (1986), 32 Ohio App. 3d 49. In this case, the trial court granted appellant a hearing on his motion, even though the motion was devoid of evidentiary material supporting his allegations. A motion to vacate a judgment brought pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 9, 11; Terwood v. Harrison (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 170. However, that discretion is not unbridled. A court considering a motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B) must determine that: (1) the motion was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the judgment was entered; (2) that the movant has a meritorious claim or defense to present if relief is granted; and (3) that he is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5). GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 146. Evidentiary materials presented in such motions must present "operative facts" and not mere general allegations or conclusions. East Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker (1978) 59 Ohio App. 2d 216; Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App. 2d 97. Appellant has failed to present, either through his written motion and attached memorandum or at the evidentiary hearing, admissions, answers to interrogatories, or any documentary evidence in support of his motion for relief from judgment. Furthermore, neither appellant nor his counsel appeared at the - 4 - February 15th hearing to support the motion. On these grounds, we find that the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for relief from judgment. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J. and BLANCHE KRUPANSKY, J., CONCUR. JUDGE JOHN F. CORRIGAN N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .