COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70867 LONNIE TURNER, JR., ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DENNIS T. COZZENS : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 27, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-248486 JUDGMENT: APPEAL DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants: LONNIE TURNER, JR., pro se (#00070867A) 2334 ASHURST UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, OH 44118 JANIS C. TURNER, pro se (#00007289A) 3141 E. DERBYSHIRE CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH 44118 For Defendant-Appellee: KEITH D. THOMAS (#0038533) MEYERS, HENTEMAN, SCHNEIDER & REA COMPANY, L.P.A. 815 SUPERIOR AVENUE, N.E. - #2100 CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114 - 2 - SPELLACY, J.: This is an appeal of a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, denying plaintiffs-appellants, Lonnie and Janice Turners' ("appellants") motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for a new trial. The limited but pertinent facts upon which this appeal rests are that appellants herein were involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 8, 1991, with defendant-appellee, Dennis Cozzens ("appellee"). On March 8, 1993, appellants filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. A jury trial was held on April 18, 1994, and a verdict was rendered in favor of appellee on April 22, 1994. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that appellee was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle and that appellee's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Furthermore, on April 18, 1994, in response to a motion in limine filed by appellee, the trial court conducted an in camera hearing on appellee's motion. Subsequently, the trial court granted appellee's motion in limine thus excluding evidence of appellee's alcohol and drug use. However, the trial court did not journalize its judgment until March 6, 1996. On May 4, 1994, appellants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) and Civ.R. 59 respectively. The trial court denied both motions and appellants appealed to this court. On November - 3 - 22, 1995, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and appellants filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on December 2, 1995. On February 29, 1996, appellants filed a motion to correct the record requesting that the trial court journalize its judgment granting appellee's motion in limine on April 18, 1994. On March 6, 1996, the trial court granted appellants' motion and journalized its judgment. On May 17, 1996, appellants, for a second time, filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied both motions on May 24, 1996. For the following reasons, we find that the appeal in the present case should be dismissed. App.R. 4(A) reads as follows: (A) A party shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within thirty days of the later entry of the judgment or order appealed * * *. The time for filing a notice of appeal, however, may be suspended as to all parties when any party files a timely motion in the trial court pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) or Civ.R. 59. The time to file an appeal would then be computed after a final order is entered granting or denying the motion. Heffner Construction Co., et al. v. Dept. of Transportation, State of Ohio, et al. (December 13, 1979), Franklin County App. No. 79AP-95, unreported. As to the filing of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial, Civ.R. 50(B) and Civ.R. 59(B) - 4 - respectively, provide that both motions shall be served not later than fourteen days after the entry of judgment. See Civ.R. 50(B) and Civ.R. 59(B). Civ.R. 6(B) provides that the trial court "may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule 50(B), Rule 59(B), Rule 59(D) and Rule 60(B), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them." Therefore, Civ.R. 6(B) absolutely prohibits the trial court from extending the time within which to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Civ.R. 50(B) and a motion for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(B). Centers, Inc. v. Abraham (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 262. In the present case, final judgment was entered by the trial court on April 22, 1994. Appellants filed this second appeal on June 24, 1996, more than two years after the verdict was rendered in favor of appellee. Thus, the trial court was prohibited from considering or entertaining a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion for a new trial. Since appellants' second motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for a new trial were not timely filed, the motions did not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal, which expired thirty days after appellants' orginal motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial were denied by the trial court in 1994. Hence, this court does not have jurisdiction to determine any issues raised by appellants. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record in the case sub judice, as well as our previous decision rendered in Turner, et al. - 5 - v. Cozzens (November 22, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67808, unreported ("Turner I"). The record does not indicate, however, that, even if this court had jurisdiction, there would be cause to reverse the verdict of the jury in the trial court. In particular, appellants are barred from raising the present appeal because this court previously reviewed appellants' claimed error that the trial court improperly granted appellee's motion in limine, therefore denying the admission of evidence regarding appellee's alcohol and drug use. See, Turner I. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude appellants from relitigating points of law or fact that were at issue in a former action between the same parties and which were passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 9, 10. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, appellants' appeal is not well taken and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his 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 Common Pleas 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. DAVID T. MATIA, P.J. and ANN DYKE, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .