Bond v. De Rinaldis
108 N.E.3d 657
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents: Gianna Pandolfi de Rinaldis (mother) and Joshua Bond (father) of child Andrew (born 2012); paternity established by genetic testing.
- Magistrate adopted a shared parenting arrangement favoring alternating and split vacation schedules; trial court approved and Bond’s originally filed shared parenting plan (Ex. 9) was adopted and later affirmed on direct appeal (Bond I).
- Pandolfi moved under Civ.R. 60(A) after the appellate decision, claiming the June 12, 2015 judgment mistakenly referenced the wrong parenting plan and asking the trial court to adopt a different (September 16, 2014) plan with a more restrictive uninterrupted-vacation allocation.
- Bond opposed the Civ.R. 60(A) motion, arguing no clerical error existed and that substituting the plan would be a substantive change; he did not file a cross-appeal.
- Trial court granted Pandolfi’s Civ.R. 60(A) motion and adopted the September 16, 2014 plan; Pandolfi appealed. The appellate court reversed, concluding Civ.R. 60(A) was misused and that Pandolfi invited the error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bond) | Defendant's Argument (Pandolfi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(A) could be used to substitute a different shared parenting plan after judgment | Substitution is substantive, not clerical; Civ.R. 60(A) inappropriate | The judgment mistakenly referenced the wrong parenting plan (clerical error) and should be corrected | Use of Civ.R. 60(A) here was improper because the change was substantive, not clerical; reversal and reinstatement of the prior plan |
| Whether Pandolfi may appeal the trial court's post-judgment change she requested | N/A (Bond opposed but did not cross-appeal) | Pandolfi asserted Bond waived challenge by not filing a cross-appeal | Doctrine of invited error bars Pandolfi from attacking a judgment she induced; but Bond may still raise the substantive error without cross-appeal |
| Whether the substituted plan materially altered parental vacation allocations | Substituted plan reduced uninterrupted vacation time and thus materially changed custody terms | Asserted the reference to the wrong exhibit was an oversight to be corrected | Court found the substituted plan materially reduced uninterrupted vacation time and thus effected a substantive change beyond Civ.R. 60(A) authority |
| Proper remedy to alter parenting plan timing (vacations) post-judgment | Modification must follow R.C. 3109.04 procedures (change in circumstances or mutual agreement) | Sought correction via Civ.R. 60(A) instead of statutory modification | Parties must seek modification under R.C. 3109.04 or stipulate; cannot use Civ.R. 60(A) to relitigate custody allocations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. American Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425 (1924) (cross-appeal principles and appellate scope)
- Kaplysh v. Takieddine, 35 Ohio St.3d 170 (1988) (appellee may attack lower-court reasoning without filing cross-appeal)
- Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338 (1986) (App.R. 12 permits appellate courts to address errors evident from the record)
- State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496 (1996) (appellate discretion to consider unbriefed issues limited by record evidence)
- Wardeh v. Altabchi, 158 Ohio App.3d 325 (2004) (difference between clerical corrections and substantive changes under Civ.R. 60(A))