Morris v. Morris (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 138
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Michael and Jill Morris filed a joint petition for dissolution in 2000 with a separation agreement incorporated into the decree; the agreement required Michael to pay $1,300/month spousal support "for [the Wife’s] lifetime" and stated "The Court shall not have continuing jurisdiction on this subject."
- The trial court entered the decree of dissolution approving and incorporating the separation agreement.
- Michael later moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) (various subsections) seeking to vacate or modify the spousal‑support obligation as his income fell dramatically over the ensuing years.
- The trial court denied relief, holding it lacked jurisdiction to modify the spousal‑support award because jurisdiction had not been reserved; the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The case presented a certified conflict with the Tenth District (Noble v. Noble) and reached the Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether Civ.R. 60(B) can be used to vacate or modify spousal support when the decree lacks an R.C. 3105.18(E) reservation of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may use Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate or modify a spousal‑support award in a divorce or dissolution decree that does not reserve jurisdiction under R.C. 3105.18(E) | Morris: Civ.R. 60(B) (authority to vacate judgments) allows relief for mistake, fraud, or where enforcement is no longer equitable, so the court may vacate or modify an unjust spousal‑support award even absent an explicit reservation | State/Respondent: Substantive law (R.C. 3105.18(E)) controls jurisdiction to modify spousal support; procedural rule Civ.R. 60(B) cannot override statutory limits — absent a reservation, court lacks jurisdiction | Court held: No. Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to vacate or modify spousal support where the decree lacks an R.C. 3105.18(E) reservation; if jurisdiction is reserved, relief is limited to Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(3), not (4) or (5) |
Key Cases Cited
- McClain v. McClain, 15 Ohio St.3d 289 (1984) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify spousal support set in a dissolution decree absent statutory authorization)
- Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 (1986) (Civ.R. 60(B)(4) cannot be used to evade finality of a voluntarily executed dissolution separation agreement)
- Crouser v. Crouser, 39 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (substantive statute R.C. 3105.18 controls modification of alimony; procedural Civ.R. 60(B) cannot override it)
- In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239 (1998) (when the parties reserve modification power to the court in the separation agreement, Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(3) may be used but Civ.R. 60(B)(4)/(5) remain unavailable for circumventing finality)
- Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 121 Ohio St.3d 433 (2009) (discussing the General Assembly's enactment of former R.C. 3105.18(D) and its effect on common-law modification doctrines)