2011 Ohio 3263
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Goodwin v. Goodwin, 2011-Ohio-3263, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, reversed and remanded.
- Husband Jeffery Goodwin married Evonne Goodwin on June 2, 2003; wife filed for divorce March 14, 2006.
- Wife perfected service by regular mail at Eddy Road address after certified mail was unclaimed.
- Domestic Relations Court granted uncontested divorce and journalized final order July 7, 2006.
- On November 9, 2010, husband moved to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B); court denied without a hearing.
- Husband alleged lack of notice, false pleadings, and perjury in poverty affidavit; petition argued lack of service and fraud upon the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) requires a hearing given alleged operative facts | Goodwin argues movant's facts warrant a hearing under GTE elements | Goodwin contends no hearing needed due to late filing and lack of operative facts | Hearing required for credibility and evidence if operative facts alleged |
| Whether lack of proper service voids the divorce judgment | Goodwin asserts lack of service challenges jurisdiction and supports vacating judgment | Goodwin did not appear or waive service; presumption of service controls | Trial court erred by denying without a hearing to resolve service issue; remand for evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three elements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief and timeliness)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (1996) (hearing required when operative facts presented)
- Money Tree Loan Co. v. Williams, 169 Ohio App.3d 336 (2006) (lack of service under Civ.R. 4 may require hearing; presumption of service cannot defeat sworn non-service evidence)
- In re H.T., Summit App. No. 24087, 2008-Ohio-3436 (2008) (evidence may rebut presumption of proper service; trial court may assess credibility)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (abuse of discretion standard and merits-focused review)
- Money Tree Loan Co. v. Williams, 169 Ohio App.3d 336 (2006) (procedural due process in service and vacatur context)
- DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189 (1982) (judicial review and merits-focused disposition)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (inherent power to vacate void decrees)