ANGELA S. VANDERHOFF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FELIX E. VANDERHOFF, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 13-09-21
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY
November 9, 2009
2009-Ohio-5907
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division Trial Court No. 08-DR-0006 Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
Charles R. Hall, Jr. for Appellant
Nancy Nava-Wade for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Felix Vanderhoff (“Felix“), appeals the judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting a divorce from Plaintiff-Appellee, Angela S. Vanderhoff (“Angela“). Felix contends that the trial court made errors in the property division when the court issued a different, revised judgment more than seven months after its original decision. For the reasons stated below, the trial court‘s second judgment entry is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
{¶2} Felix and Angela were married on September 4, 2004. They separated on October 5, 2007, and a contested divorce hearing was held on July 25, 2008. On September 22, 2008, the trial court issued a detailed Journal Entry granting the divorce, naming Angela the residential parent of the parties’ two minor children, granting Felix visitation, ordering Felix to pay child support, and awarding Angela limited spousal support. The trial court found that the parties’ residence was Felix‘s premarital separate property and awarded it to Felix but permitted Angela and the children to reside in the home for six months.
{¶3} In this September 22, 2008 judgment, the trial court also divided the couples’ debts and a seven-page listing of personal property. Pertinent to this appeal, the trial court awarded a motorcycle and camper to Felix. It also ordered that the parties equally split $12,642, which had already been withdrawn by Felix
{¶4} Thereafter, Angela filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to
{¶5} Felix filed a Motion to Dismiss Angela‘s Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, claiming that there was no basis for this filing, that the judgment entry was thorough, and that the filing was done to further burden him and to delay the implementation of the judgment entry. Felix did not file any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law. On January 15, 2009, a hearing was held and Felix‘s Motion to Dismiss was overruled.
{¶7} It is from this judgment that Felix appeals, presenting the following two assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
The Trial Court erred by ordering the motorcycle sold.
Second Assignment of Error
The Trial Court erred by ordering the payment of $6,321.00 to [Angela].
{¶9}
When questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties in writing or orally in open court requests otherwise ***, in which case, the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.
{¶10} The purpose of the trial court‘s issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law is “to aid the appellate court in reviewing the record and determining the validity of the basis of the trial court‘s judgment.” Werden v. Crawford (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 122, 124, 435 N.E.2d 424, 426. Findings and conclusions “must articulate an adequate basis upon which a party can mount a
{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that “a timely motion for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law under
{¶12} Filing a
{¶13} Moreover, Angela‘s purported submission of “findings of fact” consisted primarily of a request to the trial court to reconsider portions of the property division. Angela was unhappy with the trial court‘s decision concerning the award of some of the personal property. Instead of appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals, Angela asked the trial court to modify its original, final judgment entry. We find that Angela‘s motion was essentially a motion for reconsideration.
{¶14} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a party to obtain relief from final judgment in a trial court via a motion for reconsideration, as this method “is conspicuously absent within the Rules.” Pitts, supra, 67 Ohio St.2d at 380. Accordingly, “motions for reconsideration of a final judgment in the trial court are a nullity.” Id. at 379; Ham v. Ham, supra, 2008-Ohio-828, at ¶15. Therefore, any order that a trial court may have entered granting or denying such a motion for reconsideration is also a legal nullity. Robinson v. Robinson, 168 Ohio App.3d 476, 2006-Ohio-4282, at ¶17, citing Pitts, supra.
{¶15} The trial court‘s judgment entry of September 22, 2008 was a final judgment. See
{¶16} The trial court lacked jurisdiction to make substantive changes to the property division in its second judgment entry. Consequently, those portions of the May 7, 2009 judgment that modified the original property division are void and have no legal effect. See, e.g., Kelley v. Kelley, 3d Dist. Nos. 4-04-28, 4-04-32, 2005-Ohio-2355. However, to the extent that there was any confusion in the original order concerning the timeframe for the distribution of the funds from the 401(k) withdrawal, the trial court retained the authority to clarify and construe its original judgment entry to effectuate this payment.
{¶17} Felix‘s first assignment of error is now moot because the trial court did not have the authority to modify the original property division. As to his second assignment of error, the division of the funds that awarded $6,321 to Angela is still valid because this was ordered by the trial court in its original judgment. The portion of the second judgment clarifying the time for this payment was a proper order within the trial court‘s powers.
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
PRESTON, P.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
/jnc