R.C. v. A.C.

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Medina County Court of Common Pleas' denial of A.C.'s Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from a domestic violence civil protection order. The court held that, even assuming A.C. could establish incompetency or improper service as a meritorious defense, his motion was not filed within a reasonable time after he learned of the order. The court also held that additional arguments concerning unauthorized representation and allegedly false testimony were forfeited because they had not been raised in the trial court.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying A.C.'s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion because he failed to establish that the motion was filed within a reasonable time after he learned of the protection order and the grounds for relief.
2. A.C. forfeited arguments that he failed to raise in the trial court and could not obtain appellate consideration absent a developed plain-error argument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying A.C.'s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion based on alleged lack of service and notice of the full civil protection order.
2. Whether alleged incompetency at the time of the full civil protection-order hearing could constitute a meritorious defense under Civ.R. 60(B).
3. Whether A.C. could raise on appeal arguments concerning unauthorized representation, evidentiary misconduct, and the truth or sufficiency of the allegations when those issues were not raised in the Civ.R. 60(B) motion.

Disposition

affirmed