2018 Ohio 4447
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Keith and Polly Calicoat divorced in 1998; two children were born of the marriage. Several agreed orders and administrative adjustments set Keith’s monthly child support (including a temporary $100/month suspension for eight months in 2005 tied to an $800 offset).
- SEA administrative review (2012) raised the monthly withholding and added cash medical support; a Notice of Potential Emancipation for a child issued in March 2014 and Keith requested a Mistake‑of‑Fact hearing.
- A Magistrate’s Decision dated May 5, 2014 set child support and arrearage repayment, but contained an accounting oversight concerning the 2005 $100/month suspension and later adjustments. Neither party objected to that 2014 decision within 14 days.
- In 2017 Keith moved to correct/vacate the May 5, 2014 order (citing Civ.R. 60(B) and invoking federal Rule 60(d)); the magistrate and trial court later corrected clerical errors under Civ.R. 60(A) and ordered a new SEA audit, but denied Keith’s 60(B) relief as untimely and unsupported.
- Keith appealed the trial court’s May 17, 2018 judgment overruling his objections and dismissing his amended motion to vacate; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Calicoat (appellant) argument | SEA / Trial Court argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate/modif y May 5, 2014 order | Motion filed in 2017 was timely or excuseable because he did not recall seeing notice and only recently discovered errors | Motion was filed more than one year after judgment and three years after the magistrate decision; appellant offered no credible excuse for delay | Motion was untimely; trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing Civ.R. 60(B) relief |
| Clerical error in May 5, 2014 decision (failure to reflect 2005 $100/month suspension and $800 credit) | Court should correct/recognize the agreed 2005 reduction and adjust arrearage, possibly refund overpayments | SEA and court acknowledged a clerical/accounting error and performed correction under Civ.R. 60(A) and ordered a fresh audit | Court properly corrected the clerical error under Civ.R. 60(A) but still found a remaining arrearage and ordered monthly payments |
| Cash medical support (August 2012 order imposing cash medical) | Keith asserted children had private insurance and cash medical was improper; sought retroactive relief and refunds | SEA: cash medical was ordered by the 2012 administrative adjustment and not appealed; Keith offered insufficient proof of alternative coverage | Trial court accepted magistrate’s factual findings (Keith failed to prove continuous private coverage); cash medical obligation and arrearage findings sustained |
| Reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) for additional relief | Appellant cited federal Rule 60(d) to pursue independent relief or relief for lack of notice | SEA: Ohio Civ.R. 60 has no 60(d) analogue; federal rule inapplicable in state domestic relations proceedings | Federal Rule 60(d) inapplicable; relief must be sought under Ohio Civ.R. 60(A)/(B) and appellant’s federal‑rule argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (sets the three‑part test for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Strack v. Pelton, 637 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1994) (reiterates that all three GTE elements must be met for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (defines abuse of discretion standard)