Mallory v. Mallory, 2024 Ohio 5458

Quintin Mallory (husband) and Sheila Mallory (wife) divorced in 2022 under a separation agreement incorporated into the divorce decree.
The separation agreement addressed property division but mistakenly omitted husband’s Chromoflo 401(k) profit-sharing plan.
Over a year after the divorce was finalized, Sheila Mallory moved for relief from the judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (2), claiming mistake and newly discovered evidence after husband sold his company.
Husband initially agreed to amend the agreement, but later opposed the motion on timeliness grounds, as Civ.R. 60(B)(1) & (2) require filing within one year of judgment.
The domestic relations court held the motion was untimely and denied relief; wife appealed, arguing additionally under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relief from judgment was timely	Omission of 401(k) was a mistake; merits relief	Motion filed over a year after judgment; is time-barred	Relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) & (2) was untimely
Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) applies	Should apply because it lacks a time limit	Not raised below, and not a substitute for (1) or (2)	Argument waived; (5) cannot substitute for (1) or (2)
Sufficiency of appellate briefing	Entitled to relief as issue was significant	Failure to cite authority and record undermines claim	Insufficient support in brief; independent basis to deny
Abuse of discretion by trial court	Trial court erred in denying relief	Court acted properly within discretion	No abuse of discretion found; trial court affirmed

Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) may not be used to circumvent time limits of 60(B)(1)-(3))
Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (finality in judgments is critical to legal certainty and public confidence)
Kay v. Marc Glassman, 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (appellate courts review Civ.R. 60(B) denials for abuse of discretion)