Kutz v. Kutz
2013 Ohio 532
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Married in 1990; three children issue of the marriage.
- Wife filed for legal separation in 2009; Husband petitioned for divorce.
- Parties conducted discovery and attempted settlement but unresolved support and property issues.
- Hearings proceeded with counsel withdrawals; magistrate issued decision; Husband, proceeding pro se at times, filed objections.
- Trial court overruled objections; divorce decree entered; Husband later filed Civ.R.60(B) motion for relief.
- Court denied Civ.R.60(B) motion without a hearing; husband appeals alleging abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Civ.R.60(B) relief without a hearing. | Kutz contends the motion lacked operative facts and merits relief; due process requires a hearing. | Kutz maintains the record shows no meritorious defense, new evidence, or fraud; hearing not required. | No abuse of discretion; no operative facts or grounds for relief shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hover v. O'Hara, 2007-Ohio-3614 (12th Dist. 2007) (hearing not required if motion has no operative facts)
- Kay v. Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (1996) (standard for Civ.R. 60(B) relief; substantiates need for facts)
- Newell v. White, 2006-Ohio-637 (4th Dist. 2006) (60(B) relief not substitute for direct appeal)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (abuse of discretion standard on 60(B) motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1993) (defines abuse of discretion)