[Cite as C.S.J. v. S.E.J., 2020-Ohio-492.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
C.S.J., :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108390 v. :
S.E.J., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 13, 2020
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-17-369524
Appearances:
S.E.J., pro se.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
Defendant-appellant S.E.J., pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment
granting plaintiff-appellee, C.S.J., a divorce and sole custody of their minor child.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. Factual and Procedural History
On November 9, 2017, C.S.J. (wife) filed a complaint against S.E.J.
(husband) in Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-17-369524, requesting a divorce, sole custody
of the couple’s son, and spousal support. On January 16, 2018, S.E.J., pro se, filed
an answer, counterclaim, request for production, request for admissions, and
interrogatories.
On February 14, 2018, C.S.J. requested additional time to respond to
the discovery requests. On February 22, 2018, S.E.J. filed a motion in opposition to
C.S.J.’s request for extension of time. The docket does not reflect a judgment entry
regarding C.S.J.’s February 14, 2018 request.
C.S.J. filed a second motion for additional time to respond to S.E.J.’s
discovery requests on March 27, 2018. S.E.J. again filed a memorandum in
opposition to C.S.J.’s request. The trial court did not rule on C.S.J.’s motion for
extension of time, and C.S.J. did not respond to the discovery requests.
On January 9, 2019, the case proceeded to trial. In his opening
statement, S.E.J. raised the fact that C.S.J. did not respond to his request for
admissions. The court made no ruling on the discovery requests during trial. On
January 10, 2019, S.E.J. filed a motion requesting his unanswered admissions be
deemed admitted and seeking summary judgment.
Trial continued on January 17, 2019, and the parties filed written
closing arguments on February 22, 2019. The trial court’s judgment entry dated March 5, 2019, reflects C.S.J.’s divorce was granted and that “any motions not
specifically addressed are hereby denied.”
On March 11, 2019, S.E.J. filed an objection to the trial court’s
March 5, 2019 judgment entry. An amended objection to the trial court’s judgment
entry was filed on March 15, 2019, citing several reasons for the objection including
that the unanswered admissions should have been deemed admitted. Through a
judgment entry dated March 18, 2019, the trial court instructed S.E.J. that its
March 5, 2019 judgment entry is a final order and there is no provision within the
Civil Rules allowing S.E.J. to file an objection to that order.
S.E.J. filed this timely appeal on April 4, 2019, arguing one
assignment of error:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion ruling in favor of the appellee after the appellant established for the record the appellee had procedural[ly] defaulted by failing to timely answer the admissions as required by Civ.R. 36(C)[.]1
II. Law and Analysis
S.E.J. contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion
when it granted C.S.J.’s divorce and found it was in the best interest of their minor
child to grant C.S.J. sole custody. Specifically, S.E.J. argues that C.S.J.’s admissions
— that were not timely answered — established C.S.J. “did not qualify for sole
custody” and based upon those admissions the trial court should have granted joint
custody to C.S.J. and S.E.J. S.E.J. also argues that the trial court’s failure to
1While S.E.J. references Civ.R. 36(C) in his assignment of error, the applicable paragraph is Civ.R. 36(A). acknowledge the unanswered admissions was “a major error” that violated his equal
protection and due process rights under both state and federal law.2
Under Civ.R. 36(A), a party to a lawsuit may serve a written request
for admissions on the opposing party. Unless the court modifies the timeframe, the
receiving party must answer or object to the admissions within 28 days after the
requests for admissions are served or else the admissions are deemed admitted.
Civ.R. 36(A)(1).
“[W]here a party fails to timely respond to the requests for
admissions, those admissions become fact.” Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St.
Cyr, 2017-Ohio-2758, 90 N.E.3d 321, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), citing Smallwood v. Shiflet,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103853, 2016-Ohio-7887, ¶ 18. Civ.R. 36 is a self-enforcing
rule. 6750 BMS, L.L.C. v. Drentlau, 2016-Ohio-1385, 62 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 13 (8th
Dist.). Therefore, if the requests are not timely answered, they are automatically
admitted and recognized by the trial court unless a party moves to withdraw or
amend its admissions under Civ.R. 36(B). Id.
The trial court has discretion — upon motion by a party — to permit
the withdrawal or amendment of Civ.R. 36(A) admissions. Id. at ¶ 15. Civ.R. 36
does not specify that a formal motion is required nor does the rule identify a time
when the motion must be filed. Balson v. Dodd, 62 Ohio St.2d 287, 290, 405 N.E.
2d 293 (1980), fn. 2. Courts have accepted — absent a written or oral motion to
2 C.S.J. did not file an appellee’s brief. withdraw — various challenges to the truth of an admission as implicit motions to
withdraw. Ezzo v. Ezzo, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0059, 2019-Ohio-2395, ¶
29. See Balson at fn. 2 (contesting the truth of admissions for purposes of a
summary judgment motion serves as evidence of a motion to withdraw the
admissions); see also 6750 BMS at ¶ 17 (a party’s response to a motion to declare
admissions admitted and simultaneously filing an answer to the requests for
admissions act as a motion to withdraw); and Haskett v. Haskett, 11th Dist. Lake
No. 2011-L-155, 2013-Ohio-145, ¶ 25 (challenging the truth of the admissions during
trial proceedings represents a motion to withdraw).
Further, as the Ohio Supreme Court explained in Cleveland Trust Co.
v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 485 N.E.2d 1052 (1985), a trial court’s decision to
allow the withdrawal or amendment of admissions takes into consideration the
impact the admissions have on the litigation and the resulting prejudice to the
opposing party:
The court may permit the withdrawal if it will aid in presenting the merits of the case and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal will prejudice him in maintaining his action. Balson v. Dodds (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 287 [16 O.O.3d 329], paragraph two of the syllabus. This provision emphasizes the importance of having the action resolved on the merits, while at the same time assuring each party that justified reliance on an admission in preparation for trial will not operate to his prejudice.
Here, C.S.J. requested two extensions to answer S.E.J.’s admissions,
but ultimately the admissions were unanswered. Pursuant to the terms of Civ.R. 36,
the admissions were automatically admitted. C.S.J. did not file a formal motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. However, the Ohio Supreme Court does not
require such a written motion to comply with Civ.R. 36(B). Balson at fn. 2. C.S.J.
challenged the truth of the admissions when she proceeded to trial and requested
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as C.S.J. v. S.E.J., 2020-Ohio-492.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
C.S.J., :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108390 v. :
S.E.J., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 13, 2020
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-17-369524
Appearances:
S.E.J., pro se.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
Defendant-appellant S.E.J., pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment
granting plaintiff-appellee, C.S.J., a divorce and sole custody of their minor child.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. Factual and Procedural History
On November 9, 2017, C.S.J. (wife) filed a complaint against S.E.J.
(husband) in Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-17-369524, requesting a divorce, sole custody
of the couple’s son, and spousal support. On January 16, 2018, S.E.J., pro se, filed
an answer, counterclaim, request for production, request for admissions, and
interrogatories.
On February 14, 2018, C.S.J. requested additional time to respond to
the discovery requests. On February 22, 2018, S.E.J. filed a motion in opposition to
C.S.J.’s request for extension of time. The docket does not reflect a judgment entry
regarding C.S.J.’s February 14, 2018 request.
C.S.J. filed a second motion for additional time to respond to S.E.J.’s
discovery requests on March 27, 2018. S.E.J. again filed a memorandum in
opposition to C.S.J.’s request. The trial court did not rule on C.S.J.’s motion for
extension of time, and C.S.J. did not respond to the discovery requests.
On January 9, 2019, the case proceeded to trial. In his opening
statement, S.E.J. raised the fact that C.S.J. did not respond to his request for
admissions. The court made no ruling on the discovery requests during trial. On
January 10, 2019, S.E.J. filed a motion requesting his unanswered admissions be
deemed admitted and seeking summary judgment.
Trial continued on January 17, 2019, and the parties filed written
closing arguments on February 22, 2019. The trial court’s judgment entry dated March 5, 2019, reflects C.S.J.’s divorce was granted and that “any motions not
specifically addressed are hereby denied.”
On March 11, 2019, S.E.J. filed an objection to the trial court’s
March 5, 2019 judgment entry. An amended objection to the trial court’s judgment
entry was filed on March 15, 2019, citing several reasons for the objection including
that the unanswered admissions should have been deemed admitted. Through a
judgment entry dated March 18, 2019, the trial court instructed S.E.J. that its
March 5, 2019 judgment entry is a final order and there is no provision within the
Civil Rules allowing S.E.J. to file an objection to that order.
S.E.J. filed this timely appeal on April 4, 2019, arguing one
assignment of error:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion ruling in favor of the appellee after the appellant established for the record the appellee had procedural[ly] defaulted by failing to timely answer the admissions as required by Civ.R. 36(C)[.]1
II. Law and Analysis
S.E.J. contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion
when it granted C.S.J.’s divorce and found it was in the best interest of their minor
child to grant C.S.J. sole custody. Specifically, S.E.J. argues that C.S.J.’s admissions
— that were not timely answered — established C.S.J. “did not qualify for sole
custody” and based upon those admissions the trial court should have granted joint
custody to C.S.J. and S.E.J. S.E.J. also argues that the trial court’s failure to
1While S.E.J. references Civ.R. 36(C) in his assignment of error, the applicable paragraph is Civ.R. 36(A). acknowledge the unanswered admissions was “a major error” that violated his equal
protection and due process rights under both state and federal law.2
Under Civ.R. 36(A), a party to a lawsuit may serve a written request
for admissions on the opposing party. Unless the court modifies the timeframe, the
receiving party must answer or object to the admissions within 28 days after the
requests for admissions are served or else the admissions are deemed admitted.
Civ.R. 36(A)(1).
“[W]here a party fails to timely respond to the requests for
admissions, those admissions become fact.” Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St.
Cyr, 2017-Ohio-2758, 90 N.E.3d 321, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), citing Smallwood v. Shiflet,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103853, 2016-Ohio-7887, ¶ 18. Civ.R. 36 is a self-enforcing
rule. 6750 BMS, L.L.C. v. Drentlau, 2016-Ohio-1385, 62 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 13 (8th
Dist.). Therefore, if the requests are not timely answered, they are automatically
admitted and recognized by the trial court unless a party moves to withdraw or
amend its admissions under Civ.R. 36(B). Id.
The trial court has discretion — upon motion by a party — to permit
the withdrawal or amendment of Civ.R. 36(A) admissions. Id. at ¶ 15. Civ.R. 36
does not specify that a formal motion is required nor does the rule identify a time
when the motion must be filed. Balson v. Dodd, 62 Ohio St.2d 287, 290, 405 N.E.
2d 293 (1980), fn. 2. Courts have accepted — absent a written or oral motion to
2 C.S.J. did not file an appellee’s brief. withdraw — various challenges to the truth of an admission as implicit motions to
withdraw. Ezzo v. Ezzo, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0059, 2019-Ohio-2395, ¶
29. See Balson at fn. 2 (contesting the truth of admissions for purposes of a
summary judgment motion serves as evidence of a motion to withdraw the
admissions); see also 6750 BMS at ¶ 17 (a party’s response to a motion to declare
admissions admitted and simultaneously filing an answer to the requests for
admissions act as a motion to withdraw); and Haskett v. Haskett, 11th Dist. Lake
No. 2011-L-155, 2013-Ohio-145, ¶ 25 (challenging the truth of the admissions during
trial proceedings represents a motion to withdraw).
Further, as the Ohio Supreme Court explained in Cleveland Trust Co.
v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 485 N.E.2d 1052 (1985), a trial court’s decision to
allow the withdrawal or amendment of admissions takes into consideration the
impact the admissions have on the litigation and the resulting prejudice to the
opposing party:
The court may permit the withdrawal if it will aid in presenting the merits of the case and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal will prejudice him in maintaining his action. Balson v. Dodds (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 287 [16 O.O.3d 329], paragraph two of the syllabus. This provision emphasizes the importance of having the action resolved on the merits, while at the same time assuring each party that justified reliance on an admission in preparation for trial will not operate to his prejudice.
Here, C.S.J. requested two extensions to answer S.E.J.’s admissions,
but ultimately the admissions were unanswered. Pursuant to the terms of Civ.R. 36,
the admissions were automatically admitted. C.S.J. did not file a formal motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. However, the Ohio Supreme Court does not
require such a written motion to comply with Civ.R. 36(B). Balson at fn. 2. C.S.J.
challenged the truth of the admissions when she proceeded to trial and requested
sole custody of the couple’s minor child. The trial court could reasonably find that
C.S.J. implicitly presented a motion to withdraw the admissions and thereby
satisfied the rigors of Civ.R. 36(B) when she contested the truth of the Civ.R. 36(A)
admissions at trial.
The 25 admissions served upon C.S.J. by S.E.J. asked her, inter alia,
to admit that she forged documents; abandoned her child; leaked sensitive
government information; and engaged in an extramarital affair. With the
admissions, S.E.J. intended to establish C.S.J. was not suitable as sole custodian of
the couple’s minor child. The admissions went to the merits of the case and whether
sole custody to C.S.J. was in the best interest of the minor child. Therefore,
withdrawal of the admissions enhanced presentation of the merits of the case.
S.E.J. cross-examined C.S.J. and her witnesses at trial and presented
his own case in chief. There is no evidence that withdrawal of the admissions
resulted in prejudice to S.E.J. in maintaining his action. Moreover, even if S.E.J.
relied upon C.S.J.’s admissions during his trial preparations, courts are “‘loathe to
reward what would have been an unreasonable reliance in order to glorify technical
compliance with the rules of civil procedure.’” Bayview, 2017-Ohio-2758, 90 N.E.3d
321, at ¶ 23, quoting Kutscherousky v. Integrated Communications Solutions,
L.L.C., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2004 CA 00338, 2005-Ohio-4275, ¶ 28. A trial court has complete discretion concerning discovery matters.
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Stevens, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104835, 2017-Ohio-
7165, ¶ 17. A trial court’s discovery decisions — including the acceptance of a party’s
withdrawal of Civ.R. 36(A) admissions — will not be disturbed on appeal unless
there is an abuse of discretion. Bayview at ¶ 20, 26.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed C.S.J. to
proceed at trial and, in effect, permitted her to withdraw her Civ.R. 36(A)
admissions.
For the foregoing reasons, trial court’s order is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR