Rodeno v. Mezenski

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 1176

Syllabus

Divorce decree Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment evidentiary hearing abuse of discretion spousal support equitable division of property incompetency R.C. 3105.18(E) 3105.171(I) action abating upon death operative facts Civ.R. 17(B). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5) seeking to vacate divorce decree based on claims that spousal support award and property division were inequitable and that wife was incompetent at time divorce was finalized. Civ.R. 60(B)(5) cannot be used to circumvent the statutory requirements of R.C. 3105.18(E) and 3105.171(I) where there was no reservation of jurisdiction in the divorce decree and no express written consent or agreement to the requested modification of property division and spousal support award in divorce decree by both spouses. Case was not one in which trial court could grant the relief sought by Civ.R. 60(B) motion, i.e., rehearing the case on the merits and ordering a more \equitable\ property division and spousal support award, because husband died nearly a year before appellant filed Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Death of a party prior to adjudication of the issues in a divorce case causes the action to abate and ends any jurisdiction that a judge has over the case except to dismiss it. Further, appellant did not present sufficient allegations operative facts in his motion and supporting materials establishing grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) or his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in failing to appoint guardian ad litem to protect wife's interests during the divorce proceedings under Civ.R. 17(B).