Healy v. Healy , 2011 Ohio 5399 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Healy v. Healy, 2011-Ohio-5399.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96682
LISA HEALY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
PAUL HEALY
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. D-332625
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Stewart, P.J., and Cooney, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 20, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Sarah Gabinet
Kohrman Jackson & Krantz PLL
1375 East Ninth Street
One Cleveland Center, 20th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Randall M. Perla
19443 Lorain Road
Fairview Park, OH 44126
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, 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.
{¶ 9} “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), 51 Ohio App.3d 130, 554 N.E.2d 1362. We review a trial court’s
denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Rose Chevrolet, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d at 20.
{¶ 10} The timeliness of Lisa’s motion is not disputed. Indeed, Lisa filed her
motion within three months of the judgment entry of divorce. However, she failed to
demonstrate that she is entitled to relief from judgment under any of the grounds provided
in Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5).
{¶ 11} Under Civ.R. 60(B), a party is entitled to relief from judgment where there
is (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of the adverse party; (4) it is
no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any
other reason justifying relief. Lisa claims she is entitled to relief from the spousal
support award because she had no knowledge that Paul had changed their health
insurance coverage, resulting in significant financial consequences that she had not
anticipated when she negotiated spousal support. She claims she was surprised by the
discovery of this information and that Paul misrepresented the cost of the COBRA
premiums.
{¶ 12} Upon our review, we find Lisa failed to satisfy her burden of showing
operative facts to prevail upon a motion for relief from judgment. The record reflects
that the separation agreement contained no provision with regard to maintaining health
insurance for the benefit of a spouse. As such, there were no restrictions on insurance
coverage and Paul was under no obligation to maintain healthcare coverage for Lisa.
The email sent from Paul provided her with the contact information for COBRA and
clearly indicated that coverage would not be maintained following the divorce. Lisa
could have made her own inquiries to verify her healthcare costs and to explore her
healthcare options prior to entering into the separation agreement and cannot now claim
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Further, the evidence does not support a
finding that Paul knowingly made any misrepresentation of material fact with the
intention of misleading Lisa. While the amount of Lisa’s healthcare coverage was
higher than she anticipated, this was not a condition of spousal support. A party cannot
rely on Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate a settlement agreement because of a change in finances
when the party should have considered such a change in negotiating the settlement. See
Pumper v. Pumper, Cuyahoga App. No. 93916, 2010-Ohio-4131, ¶ 20.
{¶ 13} Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR