Maynard v. Miller
2017 Ohio 834
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents of a child born 1997; paternity established administratively. Appellee (Maynard) and appellant (Miller) separated and had a companionship order in 2000.
- April 2010: parties (through counsel) agreed to reduce Maynard’s child support from $479.42 to $213.73 monthly; a temporary order reflecting the reduction was filed April 6, 2010.
- A final agreed journal entry was not filed; on April 17, 2012 the court dismissed the modification action under Civ.R. 41(B)(1).
- MCCSEA thereafter treated Maynard’s obligation as the earlier $479.42, creating large arrearages; Maynard claims he only learned counsel had not filed the agreed entry in September 2014.
- Maynard filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (Feb 6, 2015). A magistrate granted relief (Dec 7, 2015) and ordered recalculation to reflect the agreed $213.73 from April 1, 2010 to June 7, 2015; trial court adopted (Feb 10, 2016).
- Miller appealed, raising (1) that the 60(B) motion was untimely and unsupported, (2) the magistrate should have struck Maynard’s brief, and (3) the magistrate failed to preserve an in‑chambers discussion on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Maynard's Argument | Miller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief is proper (timeliness, grounds, meritorious defense) | Motion filed within reasonable time after learning of counsel’s failure; seeks relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4); has meritorious defense (agreement to lower support) | Motion untimely, fails to show grounds or meritorious defense | Court affirmed: 60(B) relief granted under (4); motion timely; meritorious defense shown; inequitable to enforce prior order |
| Whether magistrate should have struck Maynard’s August 7, 2015 brief | Brief filed August 7, 2015 (stamped); magistrate permitted response and later reset hearing | Clerk backdated brief; appellant did not receive notice; move to strike required | Denied: no prejudice; magistrate gave opportunity to respond and rescheduled hearing |
| Whether magistrate erred by not preserving in‑chambers discussion on record | Not raised as harmful; full opportunities to be heard later | Failure to record requested in‑chambers discussion deprived record | Denied: omission inconsequential given later extensions and hearings; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard: Civ.R. 60(B) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate abuse of discretion standard)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three‑part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 1986) (purpose of Civ.R. 60(B)(4) — relief from unforeseen prospective application)
- Whitt v. Bennett, 82 Ohio App.3d 792 (Ohio App. 1992) (attorney neglect generally imputed to client; exception for gross neglect/misleading conduct under 60(B)(5))