Dodaro v. Dodaro
2021 Ohio 2569
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Manilyn and Steven Dodaro married in 2013, had one child, and Manilyn filed for divorce in 2016.
- On March 29, 2018 the parties executed an agreed entry stipulating that a jointly‑owned Philippines residence would be sold and net proceeds split: 25% to each spouse and 50% into an educational trust for the child; the agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree.
- The trial court's decree (Aug. 22, 2018) also ordered Steven to pay Manilyn $39,628.84 as a cash property settlement by Dec. 31, 2018.
- Steven appealed the decree and, while the appeal was pending, filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (May 24, 2019) seeking partial relief: vacate his cash‑payment obligation in exchange for awarding Manilyn the entire Philippines property interest, arguing the agreed entry was inequitable and unenforceable (Philippines issues).
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion on Jan. 29, 2020 without an evidentiary hearing, finding Steven failed to allege a meritorious defense or operative facts warranting relief; the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dodaro) | Defendant's Argument (Dodaro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Agreement was valid and enforceable; movant failed to show meritorious claim or grounds for relief | The agreed entry is inequitable and/or unenforceable (Philippines location, implementation issues); relief should vacate cash payment and award defendant interest in property | Denial affirmed: movant did not allege a meritorious defense or claim under GTE; mere disagreement or preference for a different settlement is insufficient |
| Whether the court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing | No hearing required under local rule where movant fails to allege operative facts that, if proven, would warrant relief | Movant alleged operative facts and supporting affidavit (including fraud/misrepresentation claims); hearing was required | Denial affirmed: movant did not allege sufficient operative facts to warrant a hearing; local rule permits summary disposition when facts are insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (sets three‑part Civ.R. 60(B) test: meritorious defense, grounds for relief, timeliness)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 64 (movant need only allege a meritorious defense, not prove it on Civ.R. 60(B))
- Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130 (contracting parties’ intent is presumed from agreement language)
- Harris v. Ohio Oil Co., 57 Ohio St. 118 (when no time fixed for performance, a reasonable time is implied)