SOPHIA STEVENS v. ROBERT STEVENS
Case No. 16-CA-17
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
November 23, 2016
2016-Ohio-7925
Hоn. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2014 DR 00048; JUDGMENT: Affirmed
For Plaintiff-Appellant: JASON DONNELL, 118 S. Pearl Street, Lancaster, OH 43130
For Defendant-Appellee: ANGELA SEIMER, 437 N. Broad Street, Lancaster, OH 43130
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant appeals the April 20, 2016 judgment entry of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying her Civil Rule 60(B) motion to vacate.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant Sophiа Stevens and appellee Robert Stevens were married on November 21, 1992. The parties had two children during the marriage, M.S., born April 9, 2000 and H.S., born December 5, 2003. On February 5, 2014, appellant filed a complaint for divorce against appellee.
{¶3} On July 13, 2015, the parties filed a handwritten memorandum judgment entry. The memorandum entry provides it will be filed, but not journalized, and that the attorney of record shall prepare a final judgment entry tо be filed with the court in accordance with the local rules. With regards to child support, the handwritten judgment entry provides that “Father shall be obligated to pay child support to be calculated pursuant tо using the parties’ documented current incomes, per attached worksheet.” The handwritten memorandum judgment entry did not include a provision with regards to child support arrearages.
{¶4} On September 1, 2015, an agreеd judgment entry and decree of divorce was filed and journalized. The judgment entry was signed by appellant, appellee, appellant‘s attorney, appellee‘s attorney, and the trial court judge. As to child support, the agreed judgment entry and decree of divorce provides that appellee “shall pay child support pursuant to the attached child support worksheet” and “the above child support
{¶5} Appellant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A) and/or Civil Rule 60(B). In her motion, appellant alleged that appellee was supposed to pay $3,240.17 in child support arrearages and this was inadvertently omitted from both the handwritten memorandum journal entry and the agreed journal entry/decree of divorce. The trial court issued a notice that it set her motion for a non-oral hearing.
{¶6} Appellant filed a supplemental memorandum in support of her motion on April 12, 2016. Attached to the supplemental memorandum were the following: Exhibit A, a copy of the agreed journal entry and decree of divorce; Exhibit B, a copy of the Fairfield County Child Support Enforcement Agency financial transaction history for the period of January 1, 2014 through July 9, 2015 showing an unpaid balance of $3,240.17; and Exhibit C, a copy of the handwritten memorandum journal entry. In the supplemental memorandum, appellant argues she has a meritorious defense in that she made compromises during negotiations in exchange for appellee paying the child support arrearages, including: agreeing to waive spousal support, relinquishing rights in the Millfield property, allowing aрpellee to claim M.S. as a dependent every other year for tax purposes, and allowing appellee to retain rent from the marital property.
{¶7} Appellee filed a memorandum contra to appellant‘s motion on April 13, 2016, and argued there was no intent by appellee to preserve the arrears, as indicated by both the memorandum journal entry and the agreed journal entry/decree of divorce. Further, that both parties made compromises in negotiations and such compromises were not specifically related to the arrearages.
{¶9} Appellant appeals the April 20, 2016 judgment еntry of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and assigns the following as error:
{¶10} “I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT‘S RULE 60(B) MOTION BEFORE HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.”
I.
{¶11} The decision whether to grant a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) lies within the trial court‘s sound discretion. Griffey v. Ragan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (1987). In order to find an аbuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court‘s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶12} Civil Rule 60(B) provides that “on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect * * *.” A party seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Civil Rulе 60(B) must
{¶13} In her assignment of error, appellant first contends the trial court abused its discretion in not granting her motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) for excusable neglect. In her motion for relief, appellant argues the failure to include the provision for appellee to pay her child support arrears was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” as such provision was “lost in negotiation.” To determine whether neglect is “excusable” under Civ.R. 60(B)(1), a court must consider all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988).
{¶14} Excusable neglect has been further defined as some action “not in consequence of the party‘s own carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard of the process of the court, but in consequence of some unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or аccident.” Maggiore v. Barensfeld, 5th Dist. Stark Nos. 201CA00180, 201CA00230, 2012-Ohio-2909. It is well settled that mere carelessness on a litigant‘s part, or on the part of his or her attorney, is not sufficient to rise to the level of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusablе neglect. Muskingum Watershed Conservatory District v. Kellar, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2011AP020009, 2011-Ohio-6889; Blaney v. Kerrigan, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 12-CA-86, 1986 WL 8646 (Aug. 4, 1986). “Excusable neglect is not present
{¶15} In this case, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no excusable neglect undеr these facts and circumstances. The failure to include the provision with regards to the payment of child support arrears was not the consequence of some unexpected or avoidablе hindrance or accident. Rather, appellant could have controlled or guarded against the event by making sure the child support arrearage provision was contained in the handwritten memorandum and/or in the agreed judgment entry/decree of divorce that both she and her attorney signed.
{¶16} In her assignment of error, appellant next argues the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion to judge the credibility of appellant and appellee. We disagree.
{¶17} The standard for when an evidentiary hearing on a Civil Rule 60(B) motion is necessary is set forth in Cogswell v. Cardio Clinic of Stark County, Inc., 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-8553, 1991 WL 242070 (Oct. 21, 1991). In Cogswell, this Court held under Civil Rule 60(B) that a hearing is nоt required unless there exist issues supported by evidentiary quality affidavits. Id. A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when the motion and supporting evidence contain sufficient allegations of operative facts, which would support a meritorious defense to the judgment. Id.; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. King, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2014CA00232, 2015-Ohio-3600.
{¶19} Appellant also contends in her brief that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion beсause she alleged a meritorious defense in her motion to vacate. Appellant argues she made several compromises during the negotiations in exchange for appellee‘s obligation to pay the arrearages, including agreeing to waive child support, relinquishing her rights in the Millfield property, allowing appellee to claim the minor child
{¶20} The denial of a hearing and the presentation of a meritorious defense go hand in hand. Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Lindenmayer, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15-CA-32, 2016-Ohio-1202. As detailed above, thе motion and supporting evidence did not contain sufficient allegations of operative facts to support a meritorious defense to the judgment. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Grutsch, 5th Dist. Delaware Nos. 14 CAE 1000067, 15 CAE 050041, 2015-Ohio-4721. Further, while the provisions аppellant cites are included in both the handwritten memorandum journal entry and the agreed journal entry/decree of divorce, there is no indication in the record or in either document that these prоvisions were included in exchange for appellee‘s payment of child support arrearages.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Wise, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur