Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lisa Healy v. Paul Healy

October 20, 2011

LISA HEALY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
PAUL HEALY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE



Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. D-332625

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sean C. Gallagher, J.:

Cite as Healy v. Healy,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Stewart, P.J., and Cooney, J.

{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the trial court records, and briefs of counsel.

{¶2} Plaintiff-appellant Lisa Healy ("Lisa") appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that denied her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

{¶3} On July 22, 2010, Lisa filed a complaint for divorce from defendant-appellee Paul Healy ("Paul"). The trial court issued a judgment entry of divorce in January 2011, which incorporated a separation agreement and an addendum that were entered into by the parties. These documents covered, among other terms, property division and spousal support. The separation agreement was silent as to the issue of insurance benefits and did not require either party to maintain health insurance for the other.

{¶4} Prior to their divorce, Lisa sent an email to Paul requesting COBRA cost information. Lisa requested this information because her health insurance coverage was through Paul's employer and would terminate upon divorce. Paul sent an email response indicating as follows:

{¶5} "To participate in COBRA, the process begins with Lisa and is completely controlled by Lisa. I have nothing to do with the COBRA process. I have neither influence on the process nor even knowledge if Lisa chooses COBRA (or not). Lisa's coverage with me will end the day of the divorce. To experience no gap in coverage, Lisa will first need to obtain a copy of the divorce document. With that document in hand, Lisa should then call (the next day) the NYCB Benefits Unit [631-650-8779]. The NYCB Benefits Unit will guide Lisa on how to successfully enroll into COBRA with no gap in coverage. Lisa's monthly COBRA costs will be $341.11."

{¶6} On March 11, 2011, Lisa filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. She asserted she relied on Paul's statement concerning the amount of COBRA premiums and that this was one of the major considerations in negotiating spousal support. She claimed she was surprised to discover Paul had changed his insurance during open-enrollment in November 2009 to a high-deductible plan. She further asserted that her COBRA premiums would be $374.11 per month, not $341.11 as represented by Paul.

{¶7} In opposing the motion, Paul argued that spousal support was not premised upon Lisa's ability to obtain health insurance, that it was incumbent upon Lisa to explore her health insurance options, that the evidence does not establish that a misrepresentation was made, and that Lisa was free to obtain health insurance from another provider if she felt COBRA was too expensive.

{¶8} The trial court denied Lisa's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Lisa timely filed this appeal challenging the ruling.

{ΒΆ9} "In order to prevail on a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate: (1) a meritorious claim or defense; (2) entitlement to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) timeliness of the motion. If any of these three requirements is not met, the motion should be overruled. The question of whether relief should be granted is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." (Citations omitted.) Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 520 N.E.2d 564. An evidentiary hearing is not required where the motion and attached evidentiary material do not contain allegations of operative facts that would warrant relief under Civ.R. 60(B). BancOhio Natl. Bank v. Schiesswohl (1988), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.