Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga
Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. Case No.
08 DC 000591.
William Dilley, pro se, (Plaintiff-Appellant).
Cisan, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan Co., L.P.A., (For
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...