Esplandiu v. Esplandiu
2017 Ohio 5744
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gelsomino and Jennifer Esplandiu divorced; their separation agreement (incorporated into the judgment) divided four jointly owned businesses, two to each spouse.
- One day shy of one year after the final divorce judgment, Gelsomino filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the judgment, alleging Jennifer had fraudulently misrepresented business performance and concealed income.
- Gelsomino sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(3) (fraud), (4) (prospective inequity), and (5) (other grounds), and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- Jennifer did not file a brief opposing the motion. The trial court initially set a hearing date but then denied the motion before the hearing, finding the motion untimely and lacking operative facts.
- The court of appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed, concluding Gelsomino failed to show timeliness, sufficient operative facts, or entitlement to a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gelsomino's Civ.R. 60(B) motion was timely | The court (and appellee by position) argued movant failed to explain delay or when he discovered alleged fraud, so motion was untimely | Gelsomino claimed he filed within one year and had only recently discovered the fraud/misrepresentations | Motion was untimely as pleaded; bare assertions and vague timing did not meet movant's burden to justify delay |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the 60(B) motion | The court (and appellee by position) maintained a hearing is unnecessary where movant fails to plead operative facts showing timeliness, meritorious defense, and grounds for relief | Gelsomino argued the court erred by setting a hearing date then denying the motion before hearing | No abuse of discretion; movant’s filings lacked operative facts to warrant relief or an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (sets three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (trial court must overrule Civ.R. 60(B) motion that fails to show all required elements)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (Ohio 1996) (bare allegations insufficient; movant must plead operative facts)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Adomeit v. Baltimore, 39 Ohio App.2d 97, 316 N.E.2d 469 (8th Dist. 1974) (no automatic right to an evidentiary hearing on Civ.R. 60(B); movant must show entitlement)