By SHELLEY GRIESHOP
Kimberly Anderson’s attorney was denied a request for
more time to file her response to a civil suit stemming from
the shooting death of her former husband, Celina attorney Brent
The lawsuit, filed in late August on behalf of Brent Anderson’s
family, seeks justice for Brent Anderson and an amount in excess
of $50,000 on behalf of the couple’s two young children.
This week’s denial of the motion for time extension by
Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Judge Frederick Pepple leaves
both sides with few options.
Kimberly Anderson’s newly hired attorney, Susan Heywood
of Toledo, failed to meet the 28-day response date — a
time allowance set by the Auglaize court’s rule as well
as Ohio Civil Rule. Kimberly Anderson was served with the lawsuit
on Aug. 29 and had until Sept. 26 to answer the three-page document.
Anderson, 39, of Wapakoneta, was acquitted of murder charges
one year ago in the death of her estranged husband, Brent Anderson.
She had been charged with fatally shooting him eight times in
an upstairs bedroom of the Wapakoneta home they once shared.
Heywood, who could not be reached for comment, stated in court
documents she was recently hired by Kimberly Anderson and is
still in the process of “investigating and reviewing the
allegations in the complaint.” She sought an additional
time — until Oct. 30 — to reply to the suit.
Pepple explained in his denial of that motion, Civil Rule 6
permits the court to extend the time if it is sought before
the statutory time — in this case 28 days — runs
out. Pepple’s local rule would have given Heywood an extra
three weeks if she had filed in time.
Heywood filed her motion for extension Sept. 30, four days late.
Pepple also stated a portion of Civil Rule 6 could permit an
extension of time if “good cause” is shown as a
result of “excusable neglect” for the failure to
Pepple subsequently ruled that Heywood met neither criteria
and denied the motion.
Dale Perdue of Columbus, the attorney representing Brent Anderson’s
family, could seek a judgment entry asking Pepple to rule on
the case in absence of Heywood’s response, according to
Ohio Civil Rule. But a decision made under such circumstances
could be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Perdue also could not be reached for comment.
According to the Ohio Civil Rule, Heywood could file a late
response to the complaint with a memorandum in support, which
Pepple could either accept or deny.