2021 Ohio 1684
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- L.L., born 2010, is the minor child of Anthony Liberatore (Father) and Sharon Castorani (Mother).
- Father filed for allocation of parental rights in June 2016, alleging mother’s substance abuse; he was granted emergency temporary custody.
- Cousin and her husband intervened and obtained temporary custody with Father’s agreement; settlement negotiations followed while Father was in diversion/treatment and later incarcerated.
- On June 5, 2017, at a settlement hearing where Father appeared pro se, the parties signed and the court journalized a judgment awarding legal and residential custody to Cousin and her husband; no timely appeal was filed.
- In October 2018 Father (with new counsel) moved to vacate the June 2017 custody judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction; the trial court treated the motion as Civ.R. 60(B), denied relief after a hearing, and Father appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Liberatore's motion to vacate the June 5, 2017 custody judgment | Liberatore contended the 2017 judgment was void for lack of subject-matter (or proper exercise of) jurisdiction and thus could be vacated at any time | Respondents and the court argued Father failed to satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) elements, the juvenile court had jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23, and challenges to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction are appealable errors, not grounds for collateral attack | The court affirmed denial: Father failed to demonstrate lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; challenges to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction are voidable and must be raised on direct appeal; Civ.R. 60(B) relief was not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) (relief from final judgments is limited to specified post-judgment motions)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (standards for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (a court acting without subject-matter jurisdiction issues a void judgment)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (distinguishes lack of subject-matter jurisdiction from lack of authority to exercise jurisdiction; latter renders judgment voidable and must be challenged on direct appeal)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (narrow application for Civ.R. 60(B)(5) catchall relief)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (jurisdictional challenges and standards)