Paintiff v. Eberwein
2016 Ohio 5464
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Russell Paintiff (Husband) and Kathleen Eberwein (Wife) separated; Husband filed for divorce in Aug. 2012; parties announced an in-court settlement on May 30, 2013 and the court docketed the settlement; a formal judgment entry followed July 3, 2013.
- Husband initially moved for relief from judgment on June 28, 2013 asserting he lacked mental capacity at the settlement (due to PTSD, pain, and heavy prescription medication); that motion was dismissed as premature; Husband did not timely appeal the divorce entry.
- Wife later moved for relief to correct a pension account designation (SERS vs. OPERS); the court granted her motion and issued a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the clerical error.
- Husband filed another Civ.R. 60(B) motion (filed Jan. 31, 2014) claiming lack of capacity and coercion at the May 30 settlement; a different judge held a hearing and denied Husband’s motion.
- On appeal, Husband argued (1) the trial court erred in denying relief because he was incapacitated/coerced when he agreed to the settlement, and (2) the court improperly treated Wife’s counsel’s misstatement about Husband’s pension as a clerical error rather than fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) for lack of mental capacity at the in-court settlement | Husband: He was sleep-deprived, on many prescriptions, PTSD-affected and unable to comprehend or participate meaningfully; transcript corroborates confusion as he later did not recall agreeing. | Wife: Transcript shows active, coherent participation, counsel present, Husband questioned terms, conferred with counsel, and agreed voluntarily; no extraordinary circumstances shown. | Court: Denied relief — transcript shows active participation and no evidence of incapacity; not an extraordinary case warranting 60(B)(5) relief. |
| Whether alleged coercion/undue influence by the judge or bailiff invalidated the settlement | Husband: Bailiff and judge pressured him (threats of adverse rulings/lifetime alimony), creating coercion and undue influence. | Wife: No such coercive statements appear in the record; Husband did not raise coercion below. | Court: Argument not raised below and not supported by the record; cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. |
| Whether Wife’s counsel’s misstatement that Husband had an SERS (rather than OPERS) account was fraud v. clerical error, affecting availability of 60(B) relief | Husband: Counsel misrepresented pension type (and allegedly concealed assets) so correction was not clerical but fraudulent, warranting relief. | Wife: Counsel corrected the labeling post-judgment and court issued a nunc pro tunc entry to fix clerical misidentification. | Court: Husband did not argue fraud below; he relied on the mislabeling only to show incapacity. Because the fraud claim was not raised below, it cannot be asserted for first time on appeal; nunc pro tunc correction was appropriate for the clerical error. |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying the Civ.R. 60(B) motion | Husband: Denial ignored his affidavits/testimony and corroborating witness statements showing incapacity and unfairness. | Wife: Trial court’s decision was reasonable based on hearing transcript, credibility findings, and proper application of 60(B) standards. | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (appellate review limited to the trial-court record)