Mayer v. Mayer
2017 Ohio 1450
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties: Michael J. Mayer (plaintiff/appellee) and Janice A. Mayer (defendant/appellant) divorced; final decree entered April 16, 2015.
- Post-decree disputes concerned sale of marital residence and division of retirement/savings assets (QDROs).
- Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion on April 14, 2016 seeking relief from the divorce decree based on newly discovered evidence, fraud/misrepresentation, and other reasons.
- Janice alleged she discovered (after the decree) possible undisclosed University Hospitals pension assets and PayPal/eBay receipts of approximately $80,000 that Michael did not disclose.
- The trial court denied Janice’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and her motion for reconsideration without a hearing, deeming the motion untimely.
- On appeal, the Eighth District reversed and remanded for a hearing, concluding Janice alleged operative facts sufficient to require a hearing on her Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mayer) | Defendant's Argument (Janice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Janice’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion was timely / filed within a reasonable time | Trial court: motion untimely despite being within one year | Janice: motion filed within one year and was filed reasonably because she attempted settlement first | Court: trial court abused its discretion in denying without a hearing; allegations warranted at least a hearing on timeliness/reasonableness |
| Whether a hearing was required on the Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Trial court declined to hold a hearing and denied relief | Janice: factual allegations (undisclosed pension, PayPal/eBay receipts) entitle her to a hearing | Court: reversed and remanded for a hearing because operative facts were alleged that could entitle Janice to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (sets three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (standard of review for Civ.R. 60(B) motions is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)