2020 Ohio 4107
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Ted Bloom and Gina Bloom litigated a contested divorce after a 20-day trial addressing complex business interests. Key disputed assets: Bloom Land Company, LLC (Bloom Land) and loans from Gearmar.
- CPA Kelly Carrier valued Bloom Land at $802,421 (including a $500,000 note receivable). Plaintiff’s CFO Paul Fridley testified that $500,000 of the Gearmar indebtedness was already included in Bloom Land, leaving $250,000 personally owed.
- A personal financial statement introduced at trial listed Gearmar owing $750,000 to Mr. Bloom personally. The trial court’s decree treated Bloom Land at $802,421 and listed the Gearmar obligation as $750,000, both as marital assets.
- No direct appeal was taken. Mr. Bloom later filed a Civ.R. 60(A) motion claiming the decree double-counted the $500,000 Gearmar note (a clerical/math error) and sought correction.
- The successor trial judge held a hearing and denied relief under Civ.R. 60(A), concluding any error would be substantive/factual (requiring credibility determinations), not a clerical blunder. Ms. Bloom’s request for attorney fees for frivolous conduct was also raised but not presented by a formal motion.
- The appellate court affirmed: Civ.R. 60(A) inapplicable (substantive factual issue), and attorney fees claim failed procedurally for lack of a proper motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(A) authorizes correction of an alleged double-counting of the Gearmar loan in the divorce decree | Bloom: the $500,000 Gearmar loan was included in Bloom Land and then again counted as a $750,000 marital asset — an obvious clerical/mathematical error correctable under Civ.R. 60(A) | Bloom: the trial court deliberately evaluated conflicting evidence and reached a factual valuation; any correction would change a substantive factual/legal determination and is cognizable only on appeal or via Civ.R. 60(B) | Denied — Civ.R. 60(A) applies only to mechanical/clerical errors apparent on the record; this is a substantive factual/legal issue requiring re-evaluation of evidence and credibility, not a clerical fix |
| Whether trial court erred by not awarding attorney’s fees to Gina Bloom for frivolous conduct | Gina: Mr. Bloom’s Civ.R. 60(A) motion was frivolous and she should be awarded fees under R.C. 2323.51 | Bloom: (no substantive response in record) Procedurally, the trial court could not award fees because Gina’s request was not presented in a formal motion per Civ.R. 7(B)(1) | Denied — appellate court held the fees request was not properly before the trial court (it was buried in a closing brief), so no error in failing to award fees |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1996) (Civ.R. 60(A) permits correction of clerical mistakes apparent on the record but not substantive changes)
- Kuehn v. Kuehn, 55 Ohio App.3d 245 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Civ.R. 60(A) does not allow substantive changes in judgments)
- Musca v. Chagrin Falls, 3 Ohio App.3d 192 (Ohio Ct. App.) (distinguishing clerical blunders from legal/factual errors)
- Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574 (9th Cir. 1987) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) permits correction to reflect the court’s actual intentions; distinguishes clerical corrections from substantive changes)
- Dentsply Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas, 26 Ohio App.3d 116 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Civ.R. 60(A) applies only to inadvertent clerical errors)
- Paris v. Georgetown Homes, Inc., 113 Ohio App.3d 501 (Ohio Ct. App.) (a court may not use Civ.R. 60(A) to change something the record shows was intentionally omitted)