COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68872 : ACCELERATED DOCKET INDEPENDENCE BANK : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION EDK IRON WORKS, OHIO, et al : [Appeal by Richard Havel, Diana : Havel and Elizabeth Kasper] : : Defendant-Appellants : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : OCTOBER 26, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 236,056 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: DAVID M. DOUGLASS Attorney at Law 2000 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1901 For defendant-appellants: JAMES R. DOUGLASS Attorney at Law 1400 Leader Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Defendant-appellants Richard Havel, Diana Havel and Elizabeth Kasper (hereinafter "appellants") appeal from an order of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court denying their Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a $305,375 cognovit judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On July 27, 1992, appellee Independence Bank obtained a cognovit judgment against EDK Iron Works of Ohio, Inc. ("EDK"), not a party to this appeal, and the appellants, all acting as co- makers of a commercial loan from Independence Bank to EDK. On July 22, 1994, appellants filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the judgment on the basis that any collection efforts were barred since Independence Bank allegedly failed to comply with the man- dates of R.C. 1309.47 and dispose of the collateral in a commer- cially reasonable manner. On April 4, 1995, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. - 3 - In their sole assignment of error, appellants assert that: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B) WHERE APPEL- LANT [sic] HAS A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE TO PRES- ENT IF RELIEF IS GRANTED, APPELLANT [sic] IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER ONE OF THE GROUNDS STATED IN RULE 60(B) THROUGH(5), AND THE MOTION WAS MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. The appellants' burden on appeal is to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for relief from judgment. Griffey v. Rajan (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 77; Middletown v. Campbell (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 63, 64. This appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in applying the abuse of discretion standard; our review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or judgment in which the trial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. In re Jane Doe (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138; Berk v. Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169. The burden is on the moving party under Civ.R. 60(B) to show by affidavit or other supporting data that his motion is timely, that he has grounds under the rule, and that he has a meritorious defense to the claim. GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, paragraph two of the syllabus; Weaver v. Colwell Financial Corp. (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 139, 143. The movant must establish all three elements to prevail on his motion. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, - 4 - 20; Gurkovich v. AAA Mobile Home Sales & Brokerage, Inc. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 572, 573. We have reviewed the appellants' motion and find no signed affidavits or other supporting documents which demonstrate that their motion is timely, that they have a meritorious defense to the claim, or that they are entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5). GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries, supra, at paragraph two of the sylla- bus. Appellants have failed in their burden to present operative facts to establish the requirements of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Therefore, since appellants have failed to meet the require- ments of a successful Civ.R. 60(B) motion, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying appellants' motion for relief from judgment. Appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its 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 Cuyahoga County 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, PRES. JUDGE SARA J. HARPER, JUDGE JOHN V. CORRIGAN, JUDGE* *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: John V. Corrigan, retired Judge of the Eighth Appellate District. 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, .