Barton. v. Barton
2016 Ohio 5264
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Douglas Barton (pro se) appealed a restraining order entered by the Greene County Domestic Relations Court and separately sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) from the final divorce decree and related domestic-violence proceedings.
- The court had previously issued reciprocal five-year civil protection orders after a full hearing; this court later reversed the CPO against Barton for insufficient evidence.
- After Barton filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court against a judge (Judge Campbell), Judge Hurley issued a court-initiated restraining order barring Barton from contacting Judge Campbell; no hearing or contemporaneous factual findings were recorded.
- Barton filed an extensive pro se Civ.R. 60(B) motion alleging fraud and misconduct by his ex-wife, multiple attorneys, judges, and appellate courts, and demanded a jury trial and various tort remedies.
- The domestic relations court overruled Barton’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion; Barton appealed the restraining order and the denial of his 60(B) motion.
- The appellate court vacated the overly broad restraining order (it exceeded permissible scope and lacked temporal limits) but affirmed the denial of Barton’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and his jury demand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of court-issued restraining order barring contact with judge | Barton: order was improper, issued without hearing and in retaliation for filing affidavit of disqualification | Court: order aimed to prevent improper ex parte communications; judge exceeded proper procedures and scope | Vacated — order was not issued under Civ.R. 75/Civ.R.65.1/R.C. procedure and was overly broad without time limit |
| Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from divorce decree and CPOs | Barton: alleged widespread fraud/misconduct by parties, attorneys, and judges warranting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and (5) | Court: allegations were largely conclusory, res judicata barred many claims, and Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for appeal | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in denying 60(B); Barton failed to show meritorious defense, operative facts, or proper grounds |
| Right to jury trial in domestic relations proceedings | Barton: demanded jury trial for claims raised in 60(B) motion | Court: Civ.R. 75(C) precludes jury trials in domestic relations matters | Affirmed — no right to jury trial in domestic relations forum |
| Proper forum and method to raise judicial misconduct or collateral tort claims | Barton: raised judicial misconduct and tort claims within Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Court/defendant: judicial misconduct is for the Board on Grievances and Discipline; torts must be brought by complaint in proper court | Affirmed — appellate court lacks jurisdiction over discipline claims; torts and grievances must be filed separately in proper forums |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (standards for abuse of discretion review in Civ.R. 60(B) context)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (Civ.R. 60(B) is not a substitute for appeal; res judicata applies)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (GTE test for Civ.R. 60(B): meritorious defense, grounds, timeliness)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (Civ.R. 60(B) requirements are conjunctive)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983) (distinguishing fraud affecting judgment from other misconduct)
- Hartford v. Hartford, 53 Ohio App.2d 79 (1977) (narrow construction of fraud upon the court; examples of egregious conduct justifying relief)
- GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C. v. Herring, 189 Ohio App.3d 200 (2010) (Civ.R. 60(B) requires operative facts, not conclusory allegations)