Dilley v. Dilley
2017 Ohio 8439
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William Dilley (plaintiff-appellant) and Tatiana Dilley divorced; final divorce decree entered March 10, 2010. Post-decree disputes produced multiple post-judgment motions and appeals.
- On May 27, 2016, the trial court approved certain QDROs for appellee; William appealed and this court affirmed, finding res judicata.
- While that appeal was pending, William filed (Jan. 7, 2017) a motion titled “Objections…Motion to Modify Spousal Support, Motion to Vacate Void Orders, Motion for Relief from Judgment.” A magistrate issued a decision Feb. 22, 2017; the trial court adopted it on March 15, 2017.
- William appealed the March 15, 2017 judgment, raising ten assignments of error alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, due-process violations, fraud upon the court, improper imputation of income, improper garnishment/QDROs, and that various orders were void or voidable.
- The trial court denied relief; on appeal the Eleventh District affirmed, concluding (inter alia) appellant failed to identify record support or controlling authority, repeated previously litigated claims barred by res judicata, and did not establish any order was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion or lacked subject-matter jurisdiction by denying a motion to vacate orders without an evidentiary hearing | Dilley: trial court lost jurisdiction and committed plain error by not holding an evidentiary hearing on motions to vacate void orders and for relief from judgment | Tatiana: (no brief filed on appeal); trial court treated motions as meritless and applied res judicata where appropriate | Court: No abuse of discretion; appellant failed to demonstrate error or cite record support; jurisdictional challenge not established |
| Whether claims of plain error, fraud, due process violations, or other defects render prior orders void so they may be collaterally attacked | Dilley: alleged procedural errors, statutory violations, fraud upon the court, and due-process deprivations made prior orders void ab initio | Implicitly: prior rulings and issues were previously litigated or unsupported; orders were not shown to be void | Court: Appellant provided no record citations or relevant authority; many arguments barred by res judicata; did not show orders were void |
| Whether orders (spousal-support imputation; garnishment of Social Security/pension; distributive award to appellee; QDROs) exceeded court authority or violated federal/state law | Dilley: trial court improperly imputed income to an aged/disabled payor, illegally garnished benefits, and entered inconsistent distributive awards and QDROs | Implicitly: trial court acted within its equitable domestic relations jurisdiction; prior rulings stand absent showing of voidness | Court: Issues not adequately supported; errors, if any, render judgments voidable not void; appellant failed to demonstrate lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion given appellant’s allegations | Dilley: trial court should have granted relief because orders were void or obtained by fraud/concealment | Tatiana: no responsive brief; trial court and magistrate found claims unsupported or res judicata | Court: Abuse-of-discretion standard not met; trial court’s denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terwood v. Harrison, 10 Ohio St.2d 170 (Ohio 1967) (standard for reviewing motions to vacate/relief historically referenced)
- Bank of Am. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishes void from voidable judgments; subject-matter jurisdiction requirement)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2004) (error in exercise of jurisdiction makes judgment voidable, not void)