Sulandari v. Permadi
2016 Ohio 7818
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Ninek Sulandari and Appellee Ignatius Permadi obtained a dissolution decree in August 2013 that incorporated their separation agreement, which allocated "intangible assets" (including pensions, retirement, mutual funds) to the titled party.
- Appellant later moved under Civ.R. 60(B) (grounds (1), (3), and (5)) and also sought to vacate the decree as void, arguing the decree failed to distribute Appellee’s Merrill Lynch "book of business" (alleged value > $1.5M) and alleging misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence.
- Appellant additionally sought conversion of the dissolution to a divorce under R.C. 3105.65(C).
- The trial court denied all motions without an evidentiary hearing; Appellant appealed on four assignments of error.
- The Ninth District affirmed: it held the dissolution decree was final and at most voidable (not void), Civ.R. 60(B) was the proper remedy, and Appellant failed to plead operative facts entitling her to relief or to an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Sulandari's Argument | Permadi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution decree was void for omitting the Merrill Lynch book of business | Decree is void for failing to divide all marital/property assets (book of business omitted) | Decree is final and omission makes it voidable, not void; Civ.R. 60(B) is the remedy | Decree is not void; omission renders it voidable, not a nullity |
| Whether the dissolution decree was final and appealable | Decree not final/appealable due to omitted asset, so relief/attack differently available | Dissolution by mutual consent is final; omitted asset not disclosed at hearing so decree is final and appealable | Decree is final and appealable despite omission |
| Whether the court should have converted dissolution to divorce under R.C. 3105.65(C) | Conversion required because decree was void or nonfinal | Conversion unavailable because statute permits conversion only before a dissolution decree is entered | Denial of conversion affirmed; statute bars conversion after decree |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Civ.R. 60(B) motion (grounds (1), (3), (5)) | Appellant alleged excusable neglect, fraud/misrepresentation/duress/undue influence, and that omission warranted extraordinary relief | Appellee showed (and court found) appellant had knowledge/access, voluntarily agreed at hearing, and pleadings lacked operative facts | No hearing required; appellant failed to allege operative facts entitling relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1),(3),(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1998) (dissolution is statutory and based on parties’ consent; separation agreement is integral)
- In re Murphy, 10 Ohio App.3d 134 (Ohio App. 1983) (omission of assets in dissolution renders decree voidable, not void)
- State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad, 65 Ohio St.2d 68 (Ohio 1981) (failure to comply with certain rules renders judgment voidable, not void)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-prong standard for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Knapp v. Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 1986) (dissolution proceedings emphasize mutual consent)