Lucas v. Byers
2021 Ohio 2467
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Father filed for allocation of parental rights in Jan 2016; initial orders (2017) named mother residential parent for school purposes.
- Father moved (May 2018) for sole residential parent; after motions, a 13-day bench trial concluded and, on Dec 31, 2019, the juvenile court named father sole residential parent and legal custodian and imposed supervised visitation and specific conditions mother must satisfy before unsupervised (Lake Cty. Juvenile Rule V) parenting time would commence.
- Mother appealed the Dec. 31, 2019 judgment (this court later affirmed in Byers I).
- Father filed a motion Nov. 18, 2020 contending mother had not completed the conditions; on Nov. 24, 2020 the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying that Rule V parenting time would occur only "if the foregoing conditions are complete as of Aug. 27, 2020."
- Mother challenged the Nov. 24, 2020 nunc pro tunc entry as beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction during a pending appeal and as an improper Civ.R. 60(A) correction without appellate leave; the trial court’s action was defended as a clerical clarification of the court’s true intent.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the nunc pro tunc entry reflected the court’s true action, did not interfere with the pending appeal, and any failure to obtain Civ.R. 60(A) leave was a harmless technical error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Byers) | Defendant's Argument (Lucas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a nunc pro tunc clarification while the Dec. 31, 2019 appeal was pending | Byers: The trial court was divested of jurisdiction once appeal was perfected; the nunc pro tunc entry interfered with appellate review and was void | Lucas: The trial court retained jurisdiction to act on motions in the original proceeding and to clarify its prior order; the entry merely reflected the court's true action | Held: Court had prima facie jurisdiction; the clarification did not conflict with appellate jurisdiction and was proper |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc entry was an improper modification requiring leave under Civ.R. 60(A) | Byers: The change materially altered the judgment and, during a pending appeal, required leave of the appellate court under Civ.R. 60(A) | Lucas: The entry was a clerical correction to make the journal reflect the trial court's true action and was not a substantive modification | Held: The change was a permissible nunc pro tunc clarification (not a material alteration); failure to obtain Civ.R. 60(A) leave was a harmless technical error because leave would have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 2005) (trial court retains jurisdiction over matters not inconsistent with an appeal and may act in aid of appeal)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (Ohio 1978) (trial courts have authority to determine jurisdictional limits)
- Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 1990) (trial court retains jurisdiction over matters not inconsistent with appellate review)
- Singer v. Dickinson, 63 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 1992) (juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction over custody, care, and support of children)
- McKay v. McKay, 24 Ohio App.3d 74 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (nunc pro tunc is used to make the record reflect the court's true action)
- State ex rel. Phillips v. Indus. Comm., 116 Ohio St. 261 (Ohio 1927) (nunc pro tunc power limited to placing on the record judicial action actually taken)
- Hardesty v. Hardesty, 16 Ohio App.3d 56 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (a court that enters custody/support orders retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over those matters)