Genhart v. David
2011 Ohio 6732
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Genhart and David, unmarried, resolved paternity and support in a 2006 proceeding without designating a residential parent.
- The 2006 shared parenting plan provided a 4/3 split and located schooling generally by Austintown, with no court order allocating residential custody.
- By late 2008, Genhart sought to relocate to Pennsylvania and change D.D.’s school district; she filed a notice of intent to relocate and sought a district change.
- Appellee contested the relocation/school district change; initial court order allowed the change but was reversed on reconsideration, leading to further proceedings.
- A September–December 2009 trial culminated in a magistrate order (Feb. 2010) designating Appellee as the residential parent for school purposes with a revised schedule; the trial court modified this in April 2010 to keep D.D. in Austintown for the year and then switch districts at the next school year.
- On April 20, 2010, the court issued a judgment adopting part of the magistrate’s decision; on April 30, 2010, Appellee moved to reconsider, which the court treated as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and vacated the April 20 judgment; the July 27, 2010 order vacating and reinstating a prior judgment is appealed by Genhart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 20, 2010 judgment was final and appealable. | Genhart contends the April 20 order was final and appealable. | David concedes finality but argues relief was sought under Civ.R. 60(B). | Yes, the April 20, 2010 order was final and appealable. |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was properly used to revisit a final order. | Genhart: 60(B) relief not applicable; motion to reconsider was improper. | David: relief appropriate due to a trial court mistake. | No, Civ.R. 60(B) relief cannot substitute for an appeal and the movant failed GTE criteria. |
| Whether the trial court properly recognized Genhart as the residential parent for school purposes. | Genhart argues she is the default residential parent absent a contrary order. | David argues the court could designate the residential parent. | Statutory default remains with the unmarried mother; a court must explicitly designate a different residential parent. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (requirements for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Hankinson v. Hankinson, 2004-Ohio-2480 (7th Dist.) (mistakes of fact or law not grounds for 60(B) relief; reconsideration after final judgment is a nullity)
- Gron v. Gron, 2008-Ohio-5054 (7th Dist.) (limits on 60(B) relief; court’s error cannot be substituted for appeal)
- Campana v. Campana, 2009-Ohio-796 (7th Dist.) (shared parenting context for unmarried parents; statutory framework governs residential rights)
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53; 2007-Ohio-5589 (Ohio Supreme Court) (standard for modifications and best interests in parental rights)