Staats v. Finkel
2011 Ohio 4063
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Staats petitioned for a domestic violence civil protection order against Finkel after a February incident in their Pennsylvania apartment; ex parte order issued.
- A full hearing occurred on March 8, 2010; the parties entered into a consent agreement whereby Finkel agreed to avoid further contact; the magistrate approved the consent and issued the order through March 8, 2015.
- Finkel, through counsel, moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) on May 18, 2010, asserting two meritorious defenses (hearing impairment and the Pennsylvania protective order).
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion on September 13, 2010; Finkel appealed the denial.
- The appellate court held Civ.R. 60(B) relief is not a substitute for appeal and affirmed, finding the movant failed to meet Civ.R. 60(B) requirements and that the issues were not proper Civ.R. 60(B) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was proper | Finkel argues due process failure due to hearing impairment and lack of counsel | Staats argues 60(B) relief is not a substitute for appeal and issues were not proper | Denial affirmed; Civ.R. 60(B) not proper relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (Civ.R. 60(B) discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (Civ.R. 60(B) prerequisites)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1986) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief not a general appeal substitute)
- Jizco Enterprises, Inc. v. Hehmeyer, 2010-Ohio-349 (9th Dist.) (60(B) movant must show meritorious defense and timely filing)