Background
R.C. filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31 against A.C., the father of her two minor children, alleging years of physical abuse, threats to kill and rape her, and punching. An ex parte protection order was issued and personally served on A.C. on March 13, 2024. A.C. retained counsel who filed a motion to stay proceedings based on incompetency and a motion to continue because A.C. would be out of the country.
The full hearing was continued to April 10, 2024, but A.C. did not appear. His attorney was present but the magistrate denied the stay motion and proceeded. After hearing R.C.’s testimony about the abuse, the court issued a five-year civil protection order. More than a year later, in July 2025, A.C. filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion claiming he was in Uzbekistan and hospitalized in a psychiatric facility when the hearing occurred, and that he never received notice of the full protection order. The trial court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth District affirmed the denial. The court found that A.C. failed to satisfy the requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief. First, A.C.’s motion, filed more than a year after the protection order was issued, was untimely under Civ.R. 60(B)’s “reasonable time” requirement. Second, A.C.’s claim that he lacked notice was undermined by the record: he was personally served with the ex parte order, his attorney appeared at the full hearing, and A.C. himself filed a pro se “property request” with the court three months after the full order was issued—without raising any issue about notice or service. Third, A.C. never filed a change of address with the court and listed the same address in his 60(B) motion that the court used for service.
The court also noted that A.C.’s attorney was present at the full hearing and had the opportunity to advocate on his behalf but the hearing proceeded when the stay was denied. A.C.’s subsequent conduct demonstrated awareness of the proceedings, undermining his claim of lack of notice.
Key Takeaways
- A Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate a domestic violence protection order must be filed within a “reasonable time,” and a delay of more than one year will generally be considered untimely absent extraordinary circumstances.
- A respondent who has been personally served with an ex parte protection order, whose attorney appeared at the full hearing, and who later filed documents with the court cannot credibly claim lack of notice.
- Parties have an obligation to keep the court informed of their current address; failure to file a change of address will not support a claim that court notices were not received.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from domestic violence protection orders in Ohio. Respondents who choose to leave the jurisdiction or fail to stay in communication with the court do so at their peril. For practitioners representing petitioners in protection order cases, this decision provides strong authority that personal service of the ex parte order, combined with counsel’s appearance at the full hearing, satisfies due process even if the respondent is absent. For defense counsel, the case underscores the need to either appear and participate in the full hearing or take immediate steps to preserve the right to challenge the order on appeal.