Beard v. Beard
2013 Ohio 3375
Ohio Ct. App.
2013

Background

  • Beard filed for divorce after 16 years; marital properties included residence, rental, and Indian Lake cabin, with titles differing between parties.
  • Separation Agreement attached to the 2006 decree divided real property: Beard to own and manage rental and Indian Lake properties; Blair to convey her interest in those properties; Beard to retain equity and rental income; Blair to retain Promenade Lane as separate property.
  • Marital liabilities were allocated to Beard; Blair was to be saved harmless from these debts; some mortgages noted as paid in full after refinancing.
  • Blair and Beard signed both the Separation Agreement and final divorce decree; six years later Blair sought Civ.R. 60(B) relief claiming the judgment did not require refinancing of the two properties.
  • Trial court denied Civ.R.60(B) motion without a hearing; Blair appealed arguing the judgment was not fair and equitable and merited relief under Civ.R.60(B)(5).
  • Court held Civ.R.60(B) relief requires meritorious defense, grounds under 60(B)(1)-(4), and timely filing; no extraordinary circumstances or timely meritorious defense were shown.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Civ.R.60(B)(5) relief was appropriate Blair contends the divorce judgment was inequitable and requires equitable relief under 60(B)(5). Beard argues there were no extraordinary circumstances and the agreement already allocated property and liabilities. No abuse of discretion; 60(B)(5) not warranted.

Key Cases Cited

  • GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (grounds for 60(B) relief require meritorious defense and timely filing)
  • Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B))
  • Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Schaub, 2008-Ohio-4729 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (reasonableness of 60(B) relief; timeliness)
  • Adomeit v. Baltimore, 39 Ohio App.2d 97 (Ohio Ct. App. 1974) (extraordinary circumstances for 60(B)(5))
  • Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1983) (60(B) catch-all not substitute for enumerated grounds)
  • Stairwalt v. Stairwalt, 2008-Ohio-2597 (2d Dist. Champaign) (46-60(B) time limits and requirements)
Read the full case