In re L.B.G.
2012 Ohio 1061
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Father filed a custody determination on 12/30/2010.
- Mediation was ordered on 01/26/2011 to resolve custody/visitation disputes.
- Parties entered a Shared Parenting Agreement on 02/09/2011 and the court adopted it on 02/14/2011.
- Mother filed Civ.R. 60(B) motion on 03/23/2011 alleging undue influence by the mediator.
- Trial court denied the motion on 09/01/2011 and entered judgment journalized 09/06/2011; appellate review followed.
- Appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and no need for a hearing on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.]
- (Note: the Shared Parenting Agreement stated it would be submitted to a judge for approval and become part of a court-ordered custody agreement.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civ.R. 60(B) relief standard applied | A.T. asserts trial court abused its discretion. | Father contends motion lacked meritorious defense and evidence. | No abuse; movant failed to show meritorious defense. |
| Whether a hearing was required on Civ.R. 60(B) motion | A.T. contends the court should have held a hearing. | Father argues no hearing was required given lack of grounds. | Hearing not required; no grounds shown for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; abuse of discretion standard)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- In re A.H., 2005-Ohio-1307 (8th Dist. 2005) (capacity to plead operative facts; substantial compliance with rule 60(B))
- French v. Taylor, 2002-Ohio-114 (4th Dist. 2002) (requirement to provide more than bare allegations in 60(B) motion)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (hearing may be warranted if operative facts show entitlement to relief)
- Marich v. Knox Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 45 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1989) (definition of undue influence)