From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Butler

Court of Common Pleas, Clermont County
Oct 22, 1984
19 Ohio Misc. 2d 1 (Ohio Com. Pleas 1984)

Opinion

No. 84-DM-0522

Decided October 22, 1984.

Domestic relations — Divorce — Motion to dismiss denied, when — Service of process of suspected incompetent party same as upon any other individual — Divorce may be granted against incompetent for actions while sane — Jurisdiction — Appointment of guardian by probate court does not interfere with divorce action in common pleas court.

O.Jur 2d Process § 27.1

1. If a person is merely suspected to be incompetent, but if he has never been adjudicated an incompetent and has never had a guardian appointed for him and has not been committed to a mental institution or to the care of another person, then clearly he should be served with process as any other individual is served.

O.Jur 3d Family Law § 959.

2. While the court may not grant a divorce where the acts of the parties charged were due to lack of mental capacity, a divorce may be granted against an incompetent spouse for aggressions committed while sane.

3. The appointment by the probate court of a guardian of an incompetent person will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas in a pending divorce action over the assets of the marriage.

W. Steven Boller, for plaintiff.

Charles W. Creger, for defendant.


This matter came for hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for divorce filed by plaintiff, Helen Butler, and dissolve the injunction. Oral argument was heard, both counsel being present. While not stated in the motion to dismiss, counsel in his oral argument indicated that the motion fell under Civ. R. 12(B). The defendant, Joseph Butler, indicated three grounds existed for dismissal of the complaint:

1. Failure of proper service under Civ. R. 4.2 inasmuch as the defendant was incompetent at the time of service.

2. That defendant being incompetent operates as a bar to the divorce decree.

3. That inasmuch as defendant has been adjudicated incompetent on or about August 29, 1984, that the probate court which has determined incompetency now has exclusive jurisdiction over the person and estate of defendant, under R.C. 2111.14.

The court finds that under Civ. R. 4.2 that proper service was made at the time of the filing of the divorce. At that time defendant had not been adjudicated incompetent, and as indicated by Professor Harper in his 4 Anderson's Ohio Civil Practice (1973) 188, at Section 150.09: "If a person is merely suspected to be incompetent, but if he has never been adjudicated an incompetent and has never had a guardian appointed for him and has not been committed to a mental institution or to the care of another person, then clearly he should be served as any other individual is served."

Since a Civ. R. 12(B) motion applies to the pleadings themselves, there is nothing from the pleadings (there have been no verified pleadings, affidavits, etc. to construe this motion under Civ. R. 56) to indicate that at the time of the filing of the divorce defendant had been adjudicated incompetent. In fact, all representations made to this point indicate otherwise.

The law is quite clear that while the court may not grant a divorce where the acts of parties charged were due to lack of mental capacity, a divorce may be granted against an incompetent spouse for aggressions committed while sane. Again, at this point, since this is merely a Civ. R. 12(B) motion there is nothing from the pleadings indicating otherwise. Therefore, evidence must be adduced at trial or by affidavits or verified pleadings adduced under Civ. R. 56 before a motion to dismiss is granted. See Nelson v. Nelson (1958), 108 Ohio App. 365.

Further the argument of exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter fails. The appointment by the probate court of a guardian of an incompetent person in a state will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas in a pending divorce action over the assets of the marriage. In re Guardianship of Stephens (P.C. 1964), 30 O.O. 2d 325. Therefore, from all appearances of the pleadings, the question of lack of merit of grounds for divorce due to the incompetency of the defendant is not a part of the Civ. R. 12(B) motion and is prematurely and inappropriately raised at this juncture. The motion to dismiss at this time is hereby denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.


Summaries of

Butler v. Butler

Court of Common Pleas, Clermont County
Oct 22, 1984
19 Ohio Misc. 2d 1 (Ohio Com. Pleas 1984)
Case details for

Butler v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:BUTLER v. BUTLER

Court:Court of Common Pleas, Clermont County

Date published: Oct 22, 1984

Citations

19 Ohio Misc. 2d 1 (Ohio Com. Pleas 1984)
482 N.E.2d 998

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Downs v. Panioto

And the probate court's guardianship proceeding does not divest the domestic relations court of jurisdiction…

State ex Rel. Downs v. Panioto

And Linda, as an incompetent ward, could not have filed for divorce herself. See Butler v. Butler (1984), 19…