Bringman v. Bringman
2016 Ohio 7514
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- William P. Bringman (Husband) filed for divorce on Feb. 28, 2013; decree of divorce was entered April 17, 2014 after Wife failed to appear at trial.
- The April 17, 2014 decree ordered sale of the marital residence and contents at public auction; proceeds to satisfy marital indebtedness and any excess awarded to Wife; court retained jurisdiction over the sale.
- Post-decree proceedings addressed auction logistics; the home and contents were sold April 25, 2015.
- Wife was later declared incompetent (Aug. 11, 2015); counsel and a guardian were appointed to represent her interests.
- On Oct. 13, 2015 counsel for Wife moved for reconsideration of the April 17, 2014 decree (alternatively seeking relief under Civ.R. 60(B)); the trial court ultimately granted substitution of the guardian as defendant and granted reconsideration by entry dated Jan. 5, 2016.
- Husband appealed; the appellate court held the April 17, 2014 divorce decree was a final order, vacated the trial court’s Jan. 5, 2016 grant of reconsideration (but remanded for consideration under Civ.R. 60(B)), and found the substitution issue moot after Wife’s subsequent death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bringman) | Defendant's Argument (Bringman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the April 17, 2014 divorce decree a final, appealable order? | The decree was final and appealable; trial court disposed of all property. | The trial court treated the decree as non-final and entertained reconsideration. | Court held the April 17, 2014 decree was a final order under Civ.R. 75(F). |
| Was the trial court permitted to grant Wife’s motion for reconsideration? | Reconsideration was improper because the decree was final. | Trial court treated motion as appropriate and granted reconsideration. | Court vacated the trial court’s grant of reconsideration but remanded to allow the trial court to consider Wife’s alternative Civ.R. 60(B) motion. |
| Should the trial court have considered Civ.R. 60(B) relief instead of Civ.R. 54(B)? | N/A (Husband sought to overturn reconsideration). | Wife alternatively sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5); trial court did not analyze 60(B) adequately. | Court held trial court should have considered Civ.R. 60(B) because the April 17, 2014 entry was a final judgment and remanded for that analysis. |
| Was substitution of the guardian as defendant proper and reviewable on appeal? | Trial court erred in substituting parties. | Trial court substituted guardian as defendant after appointment. | Finding became moot after Wife’s death; appellate court dismissed the substitution claim as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1989) (appellate jurisdiction limited to final appealable orders)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1989) (requirements for final and appealable orders when fewer than all claims/parties are adjudicated)
- Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 303 (Ohio 1971) (final order disposes of whole case or separate and distinct branch)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (domestic relations final-judgment requirements under Civ.R. 75(F))
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (standards for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (three-part test and necessity to satisfy all elements for Civ.R. 60(B))
- Argo Plastic Prod. Co. v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio 1984) (failure to meet any Civ.R. 60(B) requirement is fatal)
- Pitts v. Dept. of Transportation, 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (motions for reconsideration to a trial court are nullities after final judgment)
- Whitaker–Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (Ohio 1972) (appellate court must dismiss appeals not taken from final orders)