{¶ 2} The pаrties were married on November 23, 1984. Six children were born as issue of the marriage. On March 29, 2000, appellee filed a complaint for divorce. The matter рroceeded to a two-day evidentiary hearing. On September 28, 2001, the magistrate issued a "Magistrate's Decision/Divorce Decree." On the same day, the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision. On October 12, 2001, appellant filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision, pursuant to Civ.R. 53. The trial court set the objections for a non-oral hearing on October 29, 2001. However, on October 29, 2001, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
{¶ 3} This Court subsequently dismissed this first appeal, finding that the trial court had failed to rule on appellant's objections to the magistrate's decision, making the cоurt's judgment entry non-final for purposes of appeal. See Kochalko v.Kochalko (June 11, 2003), Guernsey App. No. 01-CA-23,
{¶ 4} Upon remand, the trial court issued a judgment entry on August 11, 2003, addressing both appellant's Civ.R. 53 objections аnd her pro se "Motion to Release Marital Assets" and "Motion to Request the Return of Personal Items," which she had filed, in the meantime, on July 7, 2003.
{¶ 5} The court first noted in its judgment еntry of August 11, 2003, that the Juvenile Division of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas had assumed jurisdiction over the parties' children in case 20020141, wherein appellant had obtаined custody on February 22, 2002. Therefore, the trial court denied, on grounds of mootness, appellant's Civ.R. 53 objections as to custody, child support, and "relatеd children's issues." Judgment Entry, August 11, 2003, at 3. The trial court further overruled appellant's objections as to property division. Finally, the trial court denied appellant's motiоns of July 7, 2003, concluding that appellant was therein seeking to relitigate property issues which she had not raised in her Civ.R. 53 objection.
{¶ 6} Appellant filed a notiсe of appeal from the court's judgment entry of August 11, 2003. However, we subsequently dismissed that appeal for want of prosecution. (Guernsey App. No. 03-CA-22). We also denied appellant's App.R. 26(A) motion to reconsider the dismissal.
{¶ 7} On May 14, 2004, appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging fraud by appellee during the divorce proceedings and new evidence relating to property division and appellee's behavior regarding minor children. On May 19, 2004, however, the triаl court denied appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion. On June 4, 2004, appellant filed a notice of appeal, and herein raises the following four Assignments of Error:
{¶ 8} "I. The trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to civil rule 60(b) as its judgments of September 28, 2001 are clearly the result of fraud perpetrаted by the appellee.
{¶ 9} "II. The trial court erred in its allocation of parental rights and responsibilities by determining Daniel J. Kochalko to be residential and custodial parent of the parties (SIC) children.
{¶ 10} "III. The trial court erred in the division of property between the parties.
{¶ 11} "IV. The trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's decision without entering its own judgment on the issues and without affording fourteen (14) days to object to the Magistrate's Decision.
{¶ 13} In order to prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), "* * * the movant must demonstratе that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the mоtion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceedings was еntered or taken."Argo Plastic Products Co. v. Cleveland (1984),
{¶ 14} Civ.R. 60(B) represents an attempt to "strike a prоper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be done." Colley v.Bazell (1980),
{¶ 15} Appellant essentially presents a two-pronged challenge in the present appeal. First, as to the decree's property division, she contends, under Civ.R. 60(B)(3), that she presented a sufficient showing that aрpellee obtained two mortgages on the parties' marital property via fraud; i.e., that appellee had used the parties' teenage daughter to forge mortgage documents in appellant's name.1 However, notwithstanding that these actions of appellee were the subject of significаnt testimony during the 2001 divorce proceedings (see, e.g., Tr. at 151-157), we find that appellant's attempt to raise the alleged fraud via a 60(B) motion was properly dеnied under the trial court's sound discretion. It is well-established that a party may not use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal. See Doev. Trumbull Cty. Children Services Bd. (1986),
{¶ 16} Appellant secondly urges, under Civ.R. 60(B)(2), that relief from judgment as to child custody should have been granted based on appellee's subsequent felony conviction and sentence for attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Nonetheless, based on the undisputed fact that there has been a juvenilе court assumption of jurisdiction and transfer of custody to appellant, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to deny 60(B)(2) relief as moot. An appellate court is not required to render an advisory opinion on a moot question or to rule on a question of law that cannot affect mattеrs at issue in a case.State v. Bistricky (1990),
{¶ 17} Accordingly, appellant's First Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Appellant's Second, Third, and Fourth Assignments of Error are therefore overruled.
{¶ 20} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Guernsey County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
Wise, J. Farmer, P.J., and Edwards, J., concur.
Costs to appellant.