Seabolt v. Seabolt
2018 Ohio 20
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Herbert and Rhonda Seabolt married in 1986; Herbert filed for divorce in 2015 and listed the marital home as Rhonda’s last known address.
- The trial court held a final divorce hearing which Rhonda did not attend and entered a Final Judgment for Divorce that did not divide marital property.
- Six months later Rhonda moved for relief from judgment (purporting to invoke Civ.R. 60(B)), alleging she had not received notice of the final hearing and that Husband concealed the proceedings.
- After a hearing the trial court granted Rhonda’s motion, finding service was not reasonably calculated to notify her and vacated the Final Judgment for Divorce only to permit her to file an answer and assert defenses/counterclaims on property and spousal support.
- Herbert appealed the trial court’s entry granting relief from judgment; the Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Herbert) | Defendant's Argument (Rhonda) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s entry granting relief from judgment is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(3) (vacating or setting aside a judgment) | The entry vacated the Final Judgment and thus is appealable as vacating a judgment | The judgment did not fully dispose of rights (marital property unresolved); relief was limited | Not final under 2505.02(B)(3); the Final Judgment did not fully adjudicate rights, so the entry did not “vacate or set aside a judgment” for appealability |
| Whether the entry is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding) | The entry affected substantial rights and thus is appealable | The entry only vacated part of the judgment to allow Rhonda to defend on property/support; Herbert failed to show a substantial right was affected or that relief cannot be obtained after final judgment | Not final under 2505.02(B)(2); Herbert did not show his substantial rights were affected or that appropriate relief would be unavailable on appeal from a final judgment |
| Whether Civ.R. 54(B) language (“no just reason for delay”) renders the entry appealable despite 2505.02 deficiencies | The Civ.R. 54(B) language makes the order appealable now | Civ.R. 54(B) cannot convert a non-final order into a final order; both 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B) must be satisfied | Civ.R. 54(B) language cannot create jurisdiction if the order fails 2505.02; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., Inc., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (court of appeals has jurisdiction only over final orders) (jurisdictional framework for appeals)
- Lycan v. Cleveland, 146 Ohio St.3d 29 (2016) (final order requires meeting R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B))
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (Civ.R. 54(B) cannot salvage an order that fails R.C. 2505.02)
- Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., 20 Ohio St.3d 77 (a judgment that does not adjudicate all rights and liabilities is not final; Rule 60(B) inapplicable to such entries)
- State ex rel. Papp v. James, 69 Ohio St.3d 373 (divorce actions are special proceedings)