COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67623 CHERYL TIMOCK, ETC. : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION JAKOB BOLZ, JR., ETC., ET AL. : : Defendant-appellants : : -vs- : : HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., : ET AL. : : Defendant-appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MAY 25, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-205269 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellants: LAWRENCE G. SHEEHE, JR., ESQ. Cleveland, OH 44114 Suite 402A LOUIS J. LICATA, ESQ. 11925 Pearl Road WAYNE J. BELOCK, ESQ. Strongsville, OH 44136 JOHN D. RODMAN, ESQ. Licata & Crosby For defendant-appellees: 750 Courthouse Square Bldg. 310 Lakeside Avenue GREGORY H. COLLINS, ESQ. Cleveland, OH 44113 1700 Midland Bldg. 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, OH 44114 JOSEPH R. TIRA, ESQ. Quandt, Giffels & Buck 526 Superior Avenue, #800 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Husband Richard Bolz and his wife Beverly were killed when their automobile, driven by the husband, struck a tree. Plaintiff Cheryl Timock, administratrix of the wife's estate, filed this action against defendant Jakob Bolz, administrator of the husband's estate, and the husband's automobile insurers, defendants Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. and Cincinnati Insurance Co. Defendant answered and filed a counterclaim against plaintiff and cross- claim against the insurance companies. The counterclaim set forth a cause of action sounding in negligence against the wife, and two causes of action against plaintiff seeking contribution for payments defendant made on joint debts arising during the marriage. Plaintiff obtained leave of court and amended its complaint against each insurance company to allege uninsured motorists claims. Defendant answered the amended complaint and refiled its cross-claims against the insurance companies, but it did not refile the counterclaims against plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment to Heritage and Cincinnati on defendant's cross-claim. Plaintiff then dismissed all her claims with prejudice. This appeal followed. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because there has been no adjudication of defendant's counterclaims. Consequently, this is not a final appealable order. Civ. R. 54(B) provides that an order which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties. Although defendant did not refile his counterclaims in - 3 - response to the amended complaint, he was under no duty to do so. In Abram & Tracy, Inc. v. Smith (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 253, the court held that an answer and counterclaim are separate pleadings, even if combined in one document. A defendant who does not wish to make changes to a counterclaim is under no compulsion to refile the counterclaim in response to an amended complaint. Id. at 263-264. Hence, even though defendant refiled an answer and cross-claims against the insurers, his counterclaim against plaintiff remained viable. Accordingly, because the trial court's entry did not dispose of the counterclaims against plaintiff, we lack a final, appealable order. Whitaker-Merrill v. Geupel Co. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 184, syllabus. Dismissed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas 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. DAVID T. MATIA, J. DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON 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 journalization, .