Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
BLAKE A. DICKSON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
CHRISTINE A. DICKSON DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-13-348970
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Blake A. Dickson Danielle Chaffin The
Dickson Firm, L.L.C., Daniel Z. Inscore
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE For Christine A. Dickson Roger L.
Kleinman Cavitch, Familo & Durkin Co., L.P.A.
Pamela L. Gorski Matthew T. Norman Monica A. Sansalone
Gallagher Sharp, L.L.P.
BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Keough, A.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
Appellant, Blake A. Dickson, appeals the denial of his
motions to stay execution of judgment and to vacate judgment.
He claims the court erred when it denied his motions and
would not allow him to conduct discovery prior to filing a
brief in support of his motion to vacate judgment. After a
thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.
Factual and Procedural History
In September 2013, appellant filed a complaint for divorce
from his then-wife Christine A. Dickson. During the course of
that case, a guardian ad litem ("GAL"), Pamela
Gorski, was appointed for the couple's two minor
children. She was also appointed as the children's
attorney. In proceedings that can be generously characterized
as contested, the parties filed motions to show cause,
motions for sanctions, and numerous other filings. On August
27, 2015, an agreed judgment entry was entered on the record
documenting appellant's agreement to pay half of the fees
related to the GAL. The entry, signed by appellant, documents
$33, 803.75 in fees, and sets forth appellant's share of
the costs as $16, 401.87. The order also entered judgment in
that amount against appellant.
In October 2016, appellant filed a motion to stay the
judgment in favor of the GAL, and to vacate the judgment
awarding fees to the GAL. Appellant also sought an order
allowing him additional time to conduct discovery before he
filed his brief in support of his motion to vacate. The
entire substance of the motion stated,
Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Civ.R.60(B)
is incorporated herein. However, Plaintiff needs to conduct
certain discovery to complete his Brief in Support.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court stay the execution of its Judgment Entry
dated August 27, 2016 until this Court has resolved
Plaintiffs Civ.R.60(B) Motion to Vacate. Plaintiff further
requests an extension of time of ninety (90) days to conduct
certain discovery relative to his Civ.R.60(B) Motion and file
his Brief in Support.
The GAL opposed the motion pointing out, among other things,
that appellant failed to satisfy any of the requirements of
Civ.R. 60(B). On December 1, 2016, the trial court denied
appellant's motion, stating:
The power of a court to vacate its order is granted by Civ.R.
60. A motion to vacate a judgment entry must be made pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B). Nowhere in Defendant's Motion to Vacate
does he cite to the grounds listed under Civ.R. 60(B). Nor
does he cite to GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Arc
Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 124[, 351 N.E.2d 113] (1976)
which established the test that Ohio courts must use when
reviewing motions made under Civ.R. 60(B). Because of his
failure to adequately apply Civ.R. 60(B) to his Motion as
well as the fact that there are absolutely no facts plead
that would give rise to the granting of hearing under Civ.R.
60(B), Plaintiffs Motions are hereby DENIED.
Appellant then filed the instant appeal assigning ...