The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision regarding the divorce case of Keen v. Keen, case number CT2026-0059. The ruling affects Nathen Keen, who sought to overturn his divorce decree, and Heather Keen, who was awarded custody of their children and the marital home. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the standards for relief from judgment in divorce cases.
The case began when Heather Keen filed for divorce from Nathen Keen on August 2, 2023, while he was incarcerated for multiple sex offenses. Nathen Keen did not respond to the divorce complaint, leading to a default judgment on October 30, 2023. The court granted Heather custody of their children and awarded her the marital residence. Nathen attempted to appeal the decision but was denied due to a lack of timely action.
In April 2025, Nathen Keen filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B), arguing that the divorce decree was flawed. He claimed it did not establish parental rights, failed to divide property correctly, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed this motion, stating that Nathen had not presented any new evidence that warranted a hearing.
Nathen Keen then filed a second motion for relief in March 2026, claiming he was never served with the divorce complaint, which he argued meant the court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed this motion as well, stating that service was properly executed through certified mail to his prison address. The court also noted that Nathen had waived his right to contest personal jurisdiction by not raising the issue sooner.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Andrew J. King, stated, "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding service of process was perfected and it had personal jurisdiction over the matter." The court emphasized that Nathen Keen had failed to present any evidence to counter the presumption of proper service. Additionally, the court found that he had not acted within a reasonable time frame when filing his motions.
The court also addressed Nathen's claim for an evidentiary hearing, stating that he needed to provide sufficient allegations of operative facts to warrant such a hearing. The court concluded that Nathen's motions merely repeated previous arguments without introducing new evidence.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving motions for relief from judgment, particularly in divorce proceedings. It reinforces the importance of timely action and the necessity of presenting new evidence when seeking to overturn a court's decision. The court's decision also clarifies that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised through a Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
The court's decision is likely to affect other individuals in similar situations, particularly those who may be incarcerated and wish to contest divorce decrees without timely responses. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
Looking ahead, Nathen Keen may have limited options for further appeal. The court has upheld the lower court's decisions, and unless new evidence emerges or a different legal argument is presented, the ruling is likely to stand. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential for further legal action.