Hall v. Hall
2017 Ohio 7932
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties divorced by decree filed Sept. 16, 2014; decree ordered S. Allen Hall to pay Maretta Hall $800/month spousal support for 18 months (Feb. 1, 2014–July 1, 2015) and retained jurisdiction over amount but not duration. Support could be modified upon cohabitation by plaintiff.
- Pretrial and May 20, 2014 proceedings found Maretta cohabitating with an unrelated male (Dale Lowe); trial court reduced temporary support from $1,000 to $800/month based on cohabitation and found Hall in contempt for prior nonpayment (purgeable). Parties read an agreement into the record Aug. 13, 2014 leading to the final decree.
- Hall later alleged Maretta failed to notify CSEA and Hall of a March 2015 relocation and contended her cohabitation justified termination/repayment of support; he filed a show-cause and a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (filed Feb. 2, 2016) asserting newly discovered evidence, fraud, and other grounds.
- Trial court held Maretta technically failed to provide the standard-order relocation notice but denied contempt because the notice applied to "parents" (no children between parties) and the address omission caused no harm; denied Civ.R. 60(B) relief as untimely and lacking fraud/mistake/new evidence given cohabitation was known before the decree and Hall agreed to the settlement.
- Hall appealed; appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion on contempt and that Civ.R. 60(B)(2) and (3) claims were time-barred and Civ.R. 60(B)(5) could not be used to evade the one-year limit or substitute for statutory modification procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (M. Hall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maretta should be held in contempt for failing to notify CSEA/Hall of relocation | Failure to notify violated the divorce decree's standard order and warranted contempt | Notice provision targeted "parents" and the technical omission caused no harm (support was directly deposited) | No contempt; order’s relocation/parent language did not apply and omission produced no remedial need |
| Whether spousal support should be modified/terminated based on cohabitation or post-decree evidence | Cohabitation and a later-produced lease showing Lowe on the lease justify termination/repayment or relief under Civ.R. 60(B) | Cohabitation was already known and accounted for pre-decree; no newly discovered evidence or fraud; Hall voluntarily agreed to terms | Denied: no substantial change in circumstances; Civ.R. 60(B)(2)/(3) untimely; (5) not available to evade limits or substitute for R.C. 3105.18(E) analysis |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(2),(3) relief is available despite decree reservation of modification | Hall claimed newly discovered evidence/fraud justify relief from judgment | Court: those grounds must be raised within one year of the judgment; Hall filed after one year | Denied as untimely for (2) and (3) |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) may be used to obtain relief when (2)/(3) are time-barred | Hall urged Civ.R. 60(B)(5) as catch-all to obtain relief | Court: (5) cannot duplicate time-limited grounds or substitute for statutorily prescribed modification procedures; extraordinary relief only | Denied: (5) not available to circumvent one-year limit and not warranted here |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (definition and purpose of contempt; inherent contempt power)
- Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (inherent contempt power necessary for judicial functions)
- Burt v. Dodge, 65 Ohio St.3d 34 (common pleas court authority to punish contempt)
- Perri v. Perri, 79 Ohio App.3d 845 (2d Dist.) (cohabitation may justify reduction in support)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (finality of spousal-support provisions; modification only if decree reserves jurisdiction and substantial, unforeseen change occurs)
- Morris v. Morris, 148 Ohio St.3d 138 (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot enlarge or contravene R.C. 3105.18; limits on using 60(B) to modify support where statute controls)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a catch-all not to be used as substitute for specific grounds)