2020 Ohio 4963
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- J.M. (a maternal aunt) filed for custody of her niece, M.C., on Aug. 5, 2016; M.C. had lived with J.M. since May 2016. M.C.'s mother, J.C., later died.
- M.C.'s biological father, L.B., filed appearances and custody motions; J.M. obtained temporary custody Oct. 14, 2016 and sought service by publication on L.B., perfected Oct. 31, 2016.
- After continuances and a guardian ad litem appointment, J.M., L.B., and the GAL signed a shared parenting agreement Oct. 24, 2017; the trial court approved it Oct. 26, 2017.
- L.B. later sought to terminate/modify the plan and, on July 12, 2019, moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the October 2017 entry, primarily arguing defective service by publication and other defects (bias, wrong legal standard, missing educational-cost allocation).
- The trial court denied relief Sept. 30, 2019; L.B. appealed and the Tenth District affirmed, holding service by publication was proper and the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on L.B. was properly perfected by publication | Service by publication was proper under Juv.R.16(A); J.M. stated L.B.'s residence was unknown and filed affidavit and proof of publication | Service was not perfected; L.B. was not properly served so trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and the judgment is void | Service by publication was properly perfected on Oct. 31, 2016; jurisdiction existed; assignments 1–3 overruled |
| Whether relief was proper under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the shared-parenting decree | J.M. argued L.B. voluntarily entered and later challenges do not satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) (no operative facts warranting relief; untimely) | L.B. sought vacatur under Civ.R.60(B) and alleged mistakes, jurisdictional defect, and other grounds to set aside the agreement | Trial court did not abuse discretion; L.B. failed to meet Civ.R.60(B) requirements; assignment 4 overruled |
| Whether the magistrate/trial court was biased or should have been disqualified | Proceedings and rulings were lawful; magistrate explained legal standards and allowed hearings | L.B. claimed judicial bias and predisposition, citing statements and rulings | Court found no evidence of bias; oral motion to disqualify denied; assignment 5 overruled |
| Proper legal standard for modifying custody: best-interest vs. suitability | J.M. (and court) used best-interest of the child standard given custody history and the child’s long placement with J.M. | L.B. argued the court should have applied a "suitability" standard and required an unsuitability determination before awarding custody to a nonparent | Court correctly applied best-interest standard considering facts (child’s long residence with J.M.); assignment 6 overruled |
| Whether the parenting agreement failed to assign educational costs per R.C.3313.64(B)(1) | Court noted L.B. voluntarily entered the plan and waited nearly two years to challenge it | L.B. argued the decree omitted required allocation of educational costs, warranting vacatur | Court rejected vacatur; omission insufficient to justify relief under Civ.R.60(B); assignment 7 overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Boswell, 192 Ohio App.3d 374 (discussing void judgments for deficient service)
- Rite Rug Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 106 Ohio App.3d 59 (same principle that defective service deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (standard of review for personal-jurisdiction dismissal is de novo)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Civ.R.60(B) addressed to trial court's discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (GTE test: three requirements to obtain Civ.R.60(B) relief)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review limits on substituting judgment for trial court's discretion)
- CompuServe, Inc. v. Trionfo, 91 Ohio App.3d 157 (movant need not meet Civ.R.60(B) when judgment is void for lack of service)
- Rogers v. United Presidential Life Ins. Co., 36 Ohio App.3d 126 (rebuttable presumption of proper service when rules followed)
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Exec., 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (abuse-of-discretion defined)
- Doe v. Natl. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 199 F.3d 146 (abuse of discretion involves legal error or misapplication of law)