Walk v. Walk, 2016 Ohio 7247

Robin M. Walk (now Mackey) and Kurt Walk divorced in October 2012; Kurt was ordered to pay spousal and child support for two minor children.
In May 2014 Kurt moved to modify support after losing employment; Mackey moved to hold him in contempt; a magistrate overruled contempt and granted modification in June 2015.
Mackey filed objections to the magistrate’s June decisions (both contempt and modification) in a single document on October 21, 2015.
The magistrate later discovered a calculation error in the child-support figure and issued an amended support decision on November 5, 2015 (correcting the calculation); the trial court adopted the amended decision and noted no objections to it had been filed.
Mackey did not file objections to the amended decision and did not directly appeal the trial court’s adoption of it; she instead filed a Civ.R. 60(A) and (B)(1) motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied.
Mackey appealed the denial of her Civ.R. 60 motion; the appellate court affirmed, holding she failed to show clerical error or mistake/excusable neglect and that Civ.R. 60 may not substitute for a direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate’s amended decision without ruling on Mackey’s pending objections	Mackey: prior objections to the original decision remained pending and the court should have treated them as applying to the amended decision	Trial court/Walk: no objections were filed to the amended decision; Civ.R. 60 is not a substitute for direct appeal	Court: No error reviewable on appeal from a Civ.R. 60(B) denial; Mackey did not appeal the adoption order, so this issue is not before the court
Whether Mackey was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(A) or (B)	Mackey: trial court should have inferred her earlier objections applied to the amended decision; denial constituted clerical error or mistake/excusable neglect	Trial court/Walk: no clerical mistake on the record; Mackey did not file objections to the amended decision or claim excusable neglect	Court: Denial affirmed. No clerical error under Civ.R. 60(A); Mackey failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B); court did not abuse discretion

GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (establishes three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
Dentsply Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas, 26 Ohio App.3d 116 (1985) (definition of clerical error for Civ.R. 60(A))