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.

Dilley v. Dilley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga

November 6, 2017

WILLIAM DILLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TATIANA DILLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

         Civil Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 08 DC 000591.

          William Dilley, pro se, (Plaintiff-Appellant).

          Heidi Cisan, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan Co., L.P.A., (For Defendant-Appellee).

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the March 15, 2017 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

         {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. The trial court entered a final judgment of divorce on March 10, 2010. Since the entry of the final judgment of divorce, the matter has been subject to numerous post-decree motions and appeals. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2016-G-0078, 2017-Ohio-4046; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohio-1872; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3109, 2013-Ohio-4095; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093.

         {¶3} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving certain Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") filed by appellee, Tatiana Dilley. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶7. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on June 7, 2016. On appeal, we found appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶11, ¶15.

         {¶4} While that appeal was pending, on January 7, 2017, appellant filed in the trial court, "Plaintiff's Objections to the Trial Court's Decision of May 27, 2016, Motion to Modify Spousal Support, Motion to Vacate Void Orders, Motion for Relief from Judgment." Appellee filed a response on February 7, 2017. A magistrate's decision was filed February 22, 2017. Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision on March 6, 2017. On March 14, 2017, appellant requested that the magistrate issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. On March 15, 2017, the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision, noting the magistrate's decision already contained findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         {¶5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 4, 2017. On appeal, appellant raises ten assignments of error. There has been no brief filed by appellee. We address appellant's assignments of error out of numerical order.

         {¶6} Appellant's first and fourth assignments of error state:

[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion to Vacate Void Orders and Motion for Relief from Judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing and denying the Appellant due process. The magistrate and trial judge then lost subject matter jurisdiction making those judgments/orders void ab initio or Plain Error.
[4.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion and lost its subject matter jurisdiction by not following statutory procedure and violating due process by not ruling or conducting an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiff-Appellant's assignment of Plain Error.

         {¶7} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion and "lost its subject matter jurisdiction" when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on appellant's Motion to Vacate Void Orders and Motion for Relief from Judgment.

         {¶8} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant maintains the trial court ignored the argument raised in his January 7, 2017 motion that many of the judgments and orders of the trial court were made in plain error. Appellant maintains the trial court should have ...


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.