Wilkerson v. Wilkerson
2014 Ohio 1322
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother sought Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief from 2004 parenting decree designating Father as residential parent and ordering child support.
- Dr. Hartings’ 2002 opinions were later sanctioned by OSBP for lack of substantial information, but trial court relied on his testimony in the 2004 decree.
- Mother argued the fraud-on-the-court concept; Hartings was not court-appointed, so not an officer of the court.
- Court held that Hartings was not an officer of the court and his misconduct did not constitute fraud on the court under Coulson.
- Motion was not made within a reasonable time; younger child had emancipated, and delay undermined relief considerations; court affirmed denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R.60(B)(5) relief was proper for fraud on the court. | Wilkerson argues Hartings’ fraud on the court warranted relief. | Hartings was not an officer of the court and did not constitute fraud on the court. | Not a fraud on the court; relief denied. |
| Whether Hartings qualifies as an officer of the court for purposes of Civ.R.60(B)(5). | Mother contends Hartings acted as an officer of the court. | Hartings was a party-employed expert, not court-appointed. | Hartings not an officer of the court; Civ.R.60(B)(5) not satisfied. |
| Whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time. | Delay due to language barriers and ongoing fraud allegations justified timing. | Eight-year delay and lack of timely action undermined reasonable-time standard. | Motion not timely; time requirement not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983) (fraud on the court limited; officer-of-the-court distinction matters)
- Hartford v. Hartford, 53 Ohio App.2d 79 (1977) (examples of fraud on the court include egregious misconduct by counsel)
- Taylor v. Haven, 91 Ohio App.3d 846 (1993) (reasonable-time assessment for Civ.R.60(B) motions)
- Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2004-02-043, CA2004-02-046, 2005-Ohio-1236 (2005) (previous appellate consideration of Hartings’ influence on decision; parity with current appeal)
- In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239 (1998) (uda discretion in ruling on Civ.R.60(B) motions)
- Aurora Loan Servs. v. Brown, 2010-Ohio-426 (2010) (reasonable-time considerations for Civ.R.60(B) relief (one-year rule for some grounds))
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (standard for evaluating discretionary trial-court rulings on Civ.R.60(B))
- Toscano v. Cmmr. of Internal Revenue, 441 F.2d 930 (1971) (fraud-on-the-court concept discussed in federal context)