2019 Ohio 2031
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Polly and Keith Calicoat obtained a legal separation in 1998; Polly was designated residential parent and Keith ordered to pay child support.
- The parties entered multiple agreed orders (2005) adjusting Keith’s monthly support obligation and addressing uninsured medical expenses; later filings sought further modifications and audits.
- In July 2012 the Support Enforcement Agency (SEA) conducted an administrative review (Keith did not return an income affidavit); SEA recommended adjusting Keith’s support and adding cash medical support, and the trial court adopted that recommendation (Aug. 27, 2012). No appeal was taken.
- Keith later filed multiple post-judgment motions (2014–2018) challenging SEA records, seeking mistake-of-fact relief, and moving under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the 2012 order; some magistrate corrections were made but Keith’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the 2012 order was denied as untimely.
- The trial court found Keith had notice of the 2012 administrative recommendation (presumption of receipt under mailbox rule) and that his Civ.R. 60(B) claim was essentially a Civ.R. 60(B)(1) claim requiring filing within one year; the court denied relief for untimeliness and lack of meritorious proof that children had insurance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calicoat) | Defendant's Argument (Keith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate 2012 order | Motion should be granted because Keith lacked notice of the 2012 administrative modification until much later | 2012 order adopted without proper notice to Keith; relief warranted under Civ.R. 60(B) | Denied: claim construed under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) (mistake/notice) and was filed in 2018—well beyond the one-year limit; also not filed within a reasonable time |
| Merits: requirement to pay cash medical support | Cash medical support was improper because children were covered by health insurance per 2005 orders | Children were insured at the relevant times; thus cash medical support should not have been ordered | Denied: no competent evidence in the record that children had insurance during the periods at issue; magistrate and trial court properly required cash medical support per SEA recommendation and worksheet |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Strack v. Pelton, 637 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1994) (affirming requirement that all three GTE elements must be met)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (Ohio 1987) (standard of review for relief-from-judgment is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 448 N.E.2d 1365 (Ohio 1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a narrow "catch-all" for extraordinary cases)
- Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 542 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1989) (mailbox rule: properly mailed notices are presumed received)