Whitling v. Whitling
2017 Ohio 8197
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tim and Lisa Whitling married in 2007; both had prior marriages and generally kept finances separate. They shared mortgage payments on a jointly owned house.
- Tim filed for divorce July 2015 (complaint for incompatibility); Lisa counterclaimed for gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty.
- Magistrate ordered Lisa’s attorney to prepare a proposed decree and serve it by mail and email; Tim contends he never received the email copy.
- Tim proceeded largely pro se after dismissing his attorney, filing multiple motions (including discovery requests) and subpoenaing documents; the final hearing occurred May 3, 2016.
- Final divorce decree entered July 21, 2016, allocating the house to Tim and generally leaving each party with their separate property and debts.
- Tim appealed pro se, alleging procedural and legal errors, failure to receive discovery and a proposed decree, and judicial bias; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to serve proposed decree | Tim says he never received the decree by email and was prejudiced | Decree appears in the file and was mailed to Tim; it was an aid, not evidence | No prejudice shown; no reversible error |
| Failure to provide discovery | Tim contends Lisa withheld documents showing financial misconduct | Lisa (through counsel) stated all available materials were produced; Tim could subpoena additional evidence | Record shows ordered discovery was provided; Tim failed to identify specific missing items |
| Judicial bias / unfair treatment | Tim claims judge was biased and proceedings unfair; he disputes incompatibility finding | Court notes both parties testified they were incompatible; procedures followed | No evidence in record of bias; proceedings fair |
| Sufficiency of record on appeal | Tim raises many claims not clearly tied to the record | Appellate review is limited to the trial record; pro se litigant held to same standards as counsel | Claims outside the record or post-hearing motions cannot be considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316 (12th Dist. 1998) (appellate court not required to search record for evidence to support appellant's argument)