Hawkins v. Hawkins
2012 Ohio 2795
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Phillip and Karen Hawkins married in 1978 and had a 2005 non-contested divorce setting a pension-division mechanism.
- At divorce, Phillip had a Central States pension; Karen was to receive 50% of the pension benefit calculated by a specified formula.
- A QDRO was drafted to implement the divorce decree’s pension division and was filed in December 2009.
- In January 2011, Phillip filed Civ.R.60(B) motion seeking relief from judgment, arguing the final decree did not reflect the parties’ agreement and that the QDRO perpetuated an error.
- The trial court overruled the motion as untimely and lacking a meritorious defense; Phillip appealed the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) relief was timely and meritorious. | Hawkins argues the decree misreflects the agreement and the QDRO perpetuates the error. | Hawkins contends the motion shows a meritorious defense and was timely. | Motion untimely and without meritorious defense; no relief are granted. |
| Whether Civ.R.60(B)(4) or (5) apply to justify relief. | Hawkins relies on equivalently extraordinary circumstances. | Arguments under (4) and (5) are not suitable here and were not preserved. | No relief under 60(B)(4) or (5); not applicable. |
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) cannot substitute for an appeal. | Hawkins could have appealed the decree but did not. | 60(B) cannot substitute for timely appeal. | Court affirmed; 60(B) motion not a substitute for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (establishes rule for Civ.R.60(B) timeliness and meritorious defense)
- Key v. Mitchell, 81 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1998) (limits use of 60(B) as substitute for appeal; time restrictions apply)
- Risner v. Cline, 2004-Ohio-3786 (Ohio 2004) (concerns timeliness and proper use of 60(B) motions)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R.60(B) rulings)
- Ihenacho v. Ohio Inst. of Photography & Technology, 2011-Ohio-3730 (Ohio 2011) (noted prohibition on raising new arguments on appeal)