The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision denying Megan DiCresce's appeal regarding her divorce from Thomas DiCresce. The court ruled that her motion for relief from judgment was filed too late and did not warrant an evidentiary hearing. This ruling affects the custody arrangements for their three children and reinforces the importance of timely legal actions in divorce proceedings.
The case, DiCresce v. DiCresce (L-26-00023), stems from a divorce petition filed by Megan DiCresce on January 12, 2024. The couple reached a consent judgment on November 14, 2024, which included a shared parenting plan for their children. However, Megan later claimed that she was coerced into this agreement due to alleged fraud by the guardian ad litem (GAL) assigned to the case. She filed a motion for relief from judgment on January 2, 2026, more than a year after the final judgment.
Megan's motion alleged that the GAL had misrepresented the situation, stating that full custody would be awarded to Thomas unless she agreed to specific terms that included barring her partner from contacting the children. She argued that this constituted fraud and requested a new hearing, a new GAL, and the suspension of the contact ban.
The trial court denied Megan's motion on January 8, 2026, without a hearing. The court found that her motion was not filed within the one-year limit set by Ohio Civil Rule 60(B)(3) for claims of fraud. The court also noted that the rule applies only to fraud committed by an opposing party, not by a GAL. Therefore, the court ruled that Megan's claims did not meet the necessary criteria for relief.
Judge Gene A. Zmuda, along with Judges Thomas J. Osowik and Charles E. Sulek, presided over the case. The court emphasized that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on its untimeliness. The ruling stated, "The record plainly shows that appellant’s motion seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(3) was untimely and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion on that basis."
This ruling has significant implications for Megan and her family. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for individuals to act promptly when seeking legal relief. It also highlights the limitations of Civil Rule 60(B), which only allows for relief based on fraud committed by an opposing party, thus setting a precedent for future cases involving similar claims.
Moving forward, this ruling means that Megan DiCresce's divorce decree will remain in effect, and the custody arrangements established in the shared parenting plan will continue. This outcome underscores the importance of timely legal action in family law cases and may serve as a cautionary tale for others in similar situations.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Megan plans to appeal the court's decision further. The ruling from the Ohio Court of Appeals may be final unless new grounds for appeal arise or if there are related cases pending that could influence her situation.