2020 Ohio 492
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Wife (C.S.J.) filed for divorce, sole custody, and spousal support; husband (S.E.J.) answered pro se and served 25 requests for admissions.
- Wife requested two extensions to respond to discovery but never filed answers to the requests for admissions.
- Case went to trial; husband argued the unanswered admissions should be deemed admitted and moved post-trial that they be deemed admitted.
- Trial court made no express ruling treating the admissions as admitted and ultimately granted the divorce and awarded wife sole custody.
- Husband appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not deeming the unanswered Civ.R.36 admissions admitted and that doing so violated his due process/equal protection.
- Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: wife implicitly moved to withdraw admissions by contesting them at trial, withdrawal aided resolution on the merits, and husband showed no prejudice; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not treating unanswered Civ.R.36 requests as admitted and awarding sole custody to C.S.J. | C.S.J.: She contested the admissions at trial, which functions as an implicit Civ.R.36(B) motion to withdraw/amend, permitting consideration on the merits. | S.E.J.: Unanswered requests for admissions became admissions under Civ.R.36 and should have been deemed admitted, precluding sole custody to C.S.J. | The court held no abuse of discretion: withdrawal was implicit, advanced the merits, produced no prejudice to S.E.J.; affirmance of trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balson v. Dodd, 62 Ohio St.2d 287 (1980) (withdrawal/amendment of admissions may be permitted and a written motion is not strictly required)
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (1985) (withdrawal allowed if it aids presentation on the merits and does not prejudice the party who relied on the admission)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St. Cyr, 90 N.E.3d 321 (2017) (Civ.R.36 admissions become facts if not timely answered; courts have discretion to permit withdrawal)
- 6750 BMS, L.L.C. v. Drentlau, 62 N.E.3d 928 (2016) (Civ.R.36 is self‑enforcing; trial court discretion governs withdrawal/amendment of admissions)