The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from Howell Tax Accounting, Inc. and the Estate of Beth Evelyn Howell against Scott Monto and others, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case. This decision affects the plaintiffs' ability to seek relief in a legal dispute that has been ongoing since 2025.
The case, Howell Tax Accounting, Inc. v. Monto, was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and involved multiple claims, including breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court's ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of finality in legal orders before an appeal can be made.
Howell Tax Accounting, Inc. and the Estate of Beth Evelyn Howell filed the lawsuit against Scott Monto, Dan Szymczak, the Monto Group, LLC, and the Legacy Tax Advisory Group, LLC. The plaintiffs claimed six counts against the defendants, including requests for declaratory and equitable relief, as well as allegations of anticipatory repudiation and breach of contract. The dispute arose from a business arrangement that had not been resolved satisfactorily, leading to the legal action.
The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after the plaintiffs appealed a decision from the trial court dated December 2, 2025. In that ruling, the trial court denied several motions from the plaintiffs but granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the plaintiffs' request for a constructive trust. The trial court deemed this ruling a final order, stating there was no just cause for delay.
However, after the appeal was filed, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc decision on January 28, 2026, which corrected the previous decision by removing language that indicated the order was final under Ohio Civil Rule 54(B). This change became a focal point in the appeals court's deliberation.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Boggs, ruled that the December 2, 2025 judgment was not a final, appealable order. The court explained that to qualify as a final order, it must resolve all claims or satisfy specific legal criteria. The court noted, "The December 2, 2025 judgment did not dispose of a separate and distinct branch of the case, leaving nothing further for the determination of the court."
Because the trial court's ruling only addressed the plaintiffs' request for a constructive trust and did not resolve the other claims, the appeals court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court emphasized that the presence of a Civ.R. 54(B) certification is irrelevant if the judgment does not first qualify as a final, appealable order.
This ruling has implications for Howell Tax Accounting and the Estate of Beth Evelyn Howell, as they must now return to the trial court to continue their case. The dismissal means that the plaintiffs cannot pursue their appeal at this time, and all their claims remain pending in the lower court.
The decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals serves as a reminder of the importance of finality in legal proceedings. It underscores that parties must ensure their appeals are based on final judgments to avoid jurisdictional issues. This ruling could affect how similar cases are approached in the future, as parties may need to be more diligent in understanding the finality of court orders before seeking appellate review.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Howell Tax Accounting and the Estate of Beth Evelyn Howell will seek to amend their claims or how they will proceed in the trial court. There may also be potential for further appeals once the trial court resolves the remaining issues in the case. The outcome of the ongoing proceedings will be closely watched by those involved in similar business disputes.