Merkle v. Merkle
2014 Ohio 81
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kathy Merkle and Matthew Merkle were divorced in a February 11, 2013 decree dividing marital assets, retirement accounts, and personal property in the Licking County Domestic Relations Court.
- The decree treated a $30,000 loan against Kathy's retirement account as marital debt and awarded Matthew $63,500 of Kathy's $152,000 retirement account.
- Household goods and personal property were divided, with the court describing the division as equitable if not equal.
- The decree stated the court retains jurisdiction to effectuate the meaning of the property and retirement account divisions.
- Neither party appealed the February 11, 2013 judgment entry; on February 28, 2013 Kathy moved for reconsideration of retirement and personal-property issues.
- On March 15, 2013 the court denied reconsideration, finding the motion beyond Civil Rule 60(A) or not a clerical error, and requiring an appeal for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied Civil Rule 60(A) relief | Merkle contends the court erred in denying relief on the merits. | Merkle argues the motion sought only clerical corrections within Rule 60(A). | No abuse; motion beyond clerical corrections; affirmed denial. |
| Whether a visiting judge should have ruled on the merits | Merkle asserts lack of visiting-judge assignment tainted the ruling. | Administrative judge appropriately ruled; no need for a visiting judge. | No error; ruling by administrative judge proper. |
| Whether the motion allowed relief under Civil Rule 60(B) | Merkle contends relief under 60(B) was available. | 60(B) was not argued below; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. | 60(B) not reviewable; assigned error overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97 (1996) (Civil Rule 60(A) clerical corrections; cannot make substantive changes)
- Melkerson v. Melkerson, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2009-G-2887, 2009-Ohio-6381 (11th Dist. Geauga (2009)) (clerical correction limits; substantive changes prohibited)
- Veidt v. Cook, 2004-Ohio-3170 (12th Dist. Butler (2004)) (enforcing and construing judgments; retain jurisdiction to enforce)
- Robins v. Robins, 2005-Ohio-4969 (10th Dist. Franklin (2005)) (equitable division not subject to future modification absent agreement)
- Oliver v. Oliver, 2012-Ohio-3483 (5th Dist. Tuscarawas (2012)) (retirement benefits are marital property subject to division)
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 2006-Ohio-3488 (7th Dist. Jefferson (2006)) (retention of jurisdiction; modification only by written consent)
- Thurston v. Thurston, 2002-Ohio-6746 (10th Dist. Franklin (2002)) (clerical vs. substantive corrections under Civil Rule 60)