Davis v. Davis
2016 Ohio 7790
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Carmen Davis filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion (amended Jan. 14, 2015) seeking modification of a July 30, 2010 divorce decree (spousal support, property, pensions, child support/duration, transportation, medical coverage, tax exemption).
- A shared parenting plan had been filed Aug. 10, 2010 and the decree was five years old when Carmen sought relief.
- Plaintiff Joseph Davis moved to dismiss Carmen's Civ.R. 60(B) motion; hearing was continued and later held July 15, 2015.
- Trial court denied Carmen's motion by entry dated Oct. 28, 2015, finding her claims nonspecific, unsupported by evidence or law, not shown to be timely, and essentially an attempt to relitigate settled divorce terms.
- Carmen appealed, raising two assignments: (1) denial of Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief without a hearing after an initial continuance, and (2) error in granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief without an evidentiary hearing | Joe argued Carmen's motion should be denied because it failed to state specific grounds, lacked evidence, and sought relitigation of settled issues | Carmen argued she presented changed circumstances and sought relief under the catch‑all provision (Civ.R. 60(B)(5)) and was entitled to a hearing | Court held no abuse of discretion: Carmen failed to allege operative, specific facts or provide affidavits; relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) requires unusual/extraordinary circumstances and she did not meet that burden; no hearing required |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss Carmen's Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Joe sought dismissal (in substance a memorandum in opposition) of Carmen's motion | Carmen argued the motion to dismiss was procedurally deficient and should not have been granted | Court held the dismissal issue moot: the substantive denial of Carmen's 60(B) motion resolved the matter and the “motion to dismiss” was redundant |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (standards for relief from judgment/motion requirements)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (abuse of discretion standard for postjudgment relief)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (purpose and limits of Civ.R. 60(B)(5) catch‑all)
- Adomeit v. Baltimore, 39 Ohio App.2d 97 (1974) (relief under catch‑all requires substantial grounds; reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (1996) (movant must allege operative facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion)