Miklas v. Miklas, 2015 Ohio 3829

Sandra Lee Miklas (Keller) filed for divorce in July 2008; decree entered April 8, 2009 awarding her 50% of the marital portion of Robert Miklas’s 401(k) and directing Appellee to prepare a QDRO if necessary.
A QDRO prepared in 2014 by Appellee led her to file a Motion to Enforce Decree requesting Appellant’s signature to effectuate the QDRO.
Appellant (pro se), incarcerated on unrelated felony convictions, moved to appear in person or by video/phone and for a continuance to obtain pro bono counsel; both motions were denied and a magistrate approved the QDRO on September 15, 2014.
Appellant filed timely objections arguing (1) denial of his request to attend the hearing or appear remotely and denial of a continuance to secure counsel, (2) the original divorce decree was procured by undue influence/fraud, and (3) any collection from his inmate trust account would be improper.
The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision; Appellant appealed and this court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prisoner's request to attend or appear remotely should have been granted	Keller sought enforcement of the QDRO; argued hearing could proceed without Appellant present	Miklas argued he had a right of access and should be transported or allowed video/phone participation	No absolute right to attend civil trial; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying appearance/remote participation
Whether trial court should have continued hearing to allow Appellant to obtain counsel	Keller proceeded to enforce decree; argued prompt enforcement was appropriate	Miklas sought continuance to find pro bono counsel	No constitutional right to counsel in civil cases; denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion
Whether Appellant could now attack the 2009 divorce decree as procured by undue influence/fraud	Keller argued QDRO conforms to final decree and is enforceable	Miklas claimed fraud/undue influence when decree was drafted and sought to invalidate decree now	Attack on a final 2009 decree was untimely; cannot use enforcement proceeding to circumvent appeal period
Whether collection from inmate trust account could be ordered	Keller sought enforcement of monetary division via QDRO	Miklas argued payments should be deferred until release and not taken from inmate account	Issue not ripe: court approved QDRO but did not order prison-account collections; hypothetical challenge denied

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Mancino v. Lakewood, 36 Ohio App.3d 219 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (factors trial courts should weigh in deciding whether to transport an incarcerated civil party)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of regularity in absence of transcript)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)