Cornett v. Cornett
2016 Ohio 7902
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Charlotte and James Cornett married in 1965; Charlotte filed for divorce in 2012.
- At a magistrate hearing the parties entered a written separation agreement (read into the record) covering spousal support and division of assets/debts; both parties and counsel stated they understood and wanted incorporation into the divorce decree.
- A final judgment and decree of divorce incorporating the agreement was entered in July 2013, signed by both parties and their attorneys.
- In February 2014 Charlotte moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), arguing her attorney gave erroneous legal advice (regarding the marriage’s termination date and resulting property division), so she only agreed because she had no choice; she also asserted the agreement was inequitable.
- The magistrate held Charlotte failed to show entitlement to relief under Civ.R. 60(B); the trial court overruled her objections and denied relief. Charlotte appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief is warranted based on counsel's alleged bad legal advice and inequitable settlement | Cornett: counsel gave incorrect advice about separation/termination date causing an unfair property division; she signed only because she felt she had no choice | Court/James: attorney errors amount to malpractice or trial strategy, not a Civ.R. 60(B) ground; settlement knowing and voluntary | Denied — attorney error is not a basis for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1); no extraordinary circumstances under (5) shown |
| Whether counsel's ineffectiveness rendered the settlement involuntary or unenforceable | Cornett: bad advice meant she did not knowingly/voluntarily enter agreement | Court: record shows she understood terms and knowingly consented; poor advice ≠ lack of understanding | Denied — no evidence she failed to understand terms; poor advice does not void contract |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) provides relief for alleged attorney misconduct | Cornett: argues extraordinary circumstances justify relief | Court: (5) is not a substitute for specific grounds; only egregious attorney conduct (e.g., abandonment) qualifies | Denied — no showing of conduct rising to complete disregard for judicial system |
| Whether Cornett established a meritorious defense to set aside the decree | Cornett: would have a meritorious defense if agreement was induced by counsel error | Court: meritorious claim requires more than malpractice; no fraud, duress, or undue influence in record | Denied — no meritorious defense shown |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (establishes three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief and that attorney negligence is not a Civ.R. 60(B)(1) ground)
- Argo Plastic Prods. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389, 474 N.E.2d 328 (Ohio 1984) (attorney conduct imputed to client; malpractice remedy is against attorney)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (Ohio 1987) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion as arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable)
- Whitt v. Bennett, 82 Ohio App.3d 792, 613 N.E.2d 667 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (recognizes Civ.R. 60(B)(5) may cover extraordinary circumstances, but sets a high bar)
Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief, holding Charlotte's claims amounted to attorney malpractice or dissatisfaction with an otherwise knowing and voluntary settlement, not grounds for reopening the decree.