2019 Ohio 3808
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Schaefer and Mazii married in Kentucky in October 2014; Schaefer had two other concurrent marriages (a May 2014 Nevada marriage and an earlier unresolved 1994 marriage), rendering the Kentucky marriage potentially bigamous.
- After Mazii discovered Schaefer’s other marriages, she returned to Sakhalin (Russia) with their child; Schaefer remained involved in foreign custody litigation and obtained a custody order from Bahrain.
- In July 2015 Schaefer filed for divorce in Hamilton County and effected service on Mazii by publication despite evidence she lived (or had recently lived) at a known Sakhalin residence; a default divorce decree was entered December 30, 2016.
- Mazii later obtained a Russian custody order in her favor, learned of the Hamilton County default decree, and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (dec. 4, 2017) to set aside the divorce judgment.
- The domestic relations court granted relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) (extraordinary circumstances), finding Mazii had a meritorious claim (bigamy grounds) and that procedural deficiencies and competing foreign custody decrees warranted reopening; Schaefer appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schaefer) | Defendant's Argument (Mazii) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mazii showed a meritorious defense | No—default judgment stands; Mazii didn’t specify she seeks annulment | Yes—bigamy gives right to annul or seek divorce; meritorious claim exists | Court: Mazii has a meritorious claim (bigamy entitles annulment or divorce) |
| Whether relief is warranted under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) (extraordinary circumstances/fraud upon the court) | No—no extraordinary circumstances to vacate default | Yes—service by publication suspect, pattern of deceit and competing foreign orders justify relief | Court: Extraordinary circumstances (service issues, deception, custody conflicts) support relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) |
| Whether Mazii’s motion was timely (reasonable time) | Argues untimely or not within limits | Motion filed within a reasonable time after learning of decree (filed Dec. 2017) | Court: Motion was filed within a reasonable time; timeliness satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnes v. Carnes, 38 N.E.3d 1214 (1st Dist. 2015) (bigamy permits annulment or divorce; movant has meritorious claim even after a prior divorce decree)
- Strack v. Pelton, 637 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1994) (standard: abuse of discretion review for Civ.R. 60(B) rulings)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, appropriate grounds, reasonable time)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 448 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 1983) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) may be used to vacate judgments obtained by fraud on the court)
- Eggleston v. Eggleston, 103 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio 1952) (bigamous marriage effects and remedies)
- In re Marriage of Watson, 469 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio App. 1984) (concealment in dissolution proceedings can justify relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5))