Byrd v. Byrd, 2014 Ohio 2082

Houston Byrd, Jr., pro se, sought relief from a 2013 trial-court decision regarding modification of his child-support obligation and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in January 2013.
The trial court denied Byrd’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion by entry dated August 15, 2013; Byrd did not appeal that decision.
Byrd thereafter filed several additional motions and objections (described by the court as nonsensical), including a Motion for Default Judgment (filed Oct. 7, 2013) and a Motion for Objection re: alleged hearings (filed Oct. 10, 2013).
The trial court denied those post-judgment motions on October 29, 2013.
Byrd appealed the denial to the Tenth District (this appeal), asserting judicial malfeasance/nonfeasance, perjury, and violations of Civ.R. 12, 52, and 60 and faulting the court for failing to define a “Miscellaneous Motion.”
The appellate court affirmed, principally because Byrd’s appellate brief failed to comply with App.R. 16(A) and contained no developed argument or citations of legal authority supporting his assignment of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Byrd’s post-judgment motions and whether the judge committed malfeasance/nonfeasance and violated Civ.R. 12, 52, 60	Byrd alleged judicial misconduct and procedural errors, and challenged the court’s handling/labeling of motions (asked court to identify what a “Miscellaneous Motion” entails)	Trial court maintained it properly denied the motions; appellee relied on the record and trial-court rulings (implicit)	Affirmed: appeal overruled because appellant’s brief failed to present facts, argument, or legal authority as required by App.R. 16(A); appellate court declined to construct arguments for appellant

No key authorities in this opinion have official reporter citations; the court relied on appellate rules (App.R. 16) and unpublished or unreported district decisions cited without official reporter references.