Doyle v. St. Clair
2017 Ohio 5477
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- JoAnne Doyle and Jack St. Clair negotiated divorce terms privately in 2008; attorneys drafted a separation agreement from their outline and the parties incorporated the agreement into the final divorce decree in Feb 2009.
- The parties’ informal outline assigned each party responsibility for their adult children’s loans (Doyle for the Steindl loan), but that provision was omitted from the executed separation agreement; the Steindl loan was held by Lorain National Bank.
- In Jan 2014 Doyle filed a show-cause motion alleging St. Clair failed to make property equalization payments required by the separation agreement.
- St. Clair filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking to amend the judgment to reflect the parties’ original allocation of adult children’s debts and to obtain credit for payments he made on the Steindl loan; the domestic relations court granted relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5).
- The appellate court reviewed the grant of Civ.R. 60(B) relief and reversed, finding St. Clair’s asserted ground was mistake and thus properly governed by Civ.R. 60(B)(1), and his motion was untimely under the one-year limit for (1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doyle) | Defendant's Argument (St. Clair) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting St. Clair's Civ.R. 60(B) motion | 60(B)(5) was improperly used; relief here is for mistake and must be brought under 60(B)(1) within one year | Motion sought relief for an inadvertent omission and asked for correction/credit; court may grant relief under Civ.R. 60(B) | Reversed: abuse of discretion — St. Clair relied on mistake (60[B][1]) but sought relief under 60(B)(5) after the one-year deadline, so 60(B)(5) could not substitute for 60(B)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (trial court discretion on Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review of discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (denial required if Civ.R. 60(B) elements unmet)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (Civ.R. 60(B) is not a substitute for appeal)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (limited use of Civ.R. 60[B][5]; cannot substitute for other subsections after time limit)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (60[B][5] applies only when (1)-(4) do not)