## Facts

- Joan and Robert Coulson married in 1963, had two children, and accumulated substantial marital assets tied to Robert’s “Mr. Hero” business.
- In 1975, after Robert disclosed an affair, the parties discussed property division.
- Robert contacted corporate attorney Leonard Saltzer to prepare a separation agreement and “handle the divorce”; Saltzer drafted the agreement on terms dictated by Robert.
- The parties signed the separation agreement at Saltzer’s office on July 31, 1975; Saltzer filed a divorce complaint the next day identifying himself as “Attorney for Plaintiff” (Joan).
- An answer was later filed for Robert, signed by a Saltzer associate who had not been retained by Robert; the answer was withdrawn after Saltzer informed the court the parties had reached an agreement.
- At a January 1976 divorce hearing before a referee, Saltzer again appeared as Joan’s counsel and represented the separation agreement as “fair and equitable,” despite not reviewing it for fairness.
- The trial court approved the divorce and incorporated the separation agreement into the decree entered February 10, 1976, relying on counsel’s representations.
- Joan filed two motions for relief from judgment in February 1978; both were denied.
- On May 1, 1978, Joan filed a third motion under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B)(5), alleging “fraud upon the court” based on Saltzer’s misrepresentation of his role and his fairness representations.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court vacated the decree on June 3, 1981; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting relief from the divorce decree under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B)(5) based on “fraud upon the court” committed by an attorney.
2. Whether res judicata barred the third Civ.R. 60(B) motion because two earlier post-judgment motions had been denied.
3. Whether the Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion was filed within a reasonable time given the 1976 decree and the 1978 filing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief because the decree was vitiated by fraud upon the court.
- Res judicata did not bar the third motion because it rested on a distinct ground and operative facts involving deception by an officer of the court that had not been adjudicated in the prior motions.
- The filing was within a reasonable time under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) in light of the nature of the alleged fraud and the trial court’s discretionary assessment.

## Legal Principles

- Civ.R. 60(B)(5) permits a court, in appropriate extraordinary circumstances, to vacate a judgment vitiated by fraud upon the court.
- “Fraud upon the court” is distinct from party-to-party fraud; it targets the integrity of the judicial process and commonly involves misconduct by officers of the court, including attorneys.
- An attorney commits fraud upon the court by falsely presenting himself as counsel for a party and vouching for the fairness of a separation agreement without reviewing it, where the court relies on those representations in entering judgment.
- Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is not subject to the one-year limitation applicable to Civ.R. 60(B)(3), but the motion must be filed within a reasonable time.
- Res judicata does not preclude a subsequent Civ.R. 60(B) motion based on different operative facts and a different theory that were not actually litigated and determined in earlier post-judgment motions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld vacatur of a divorce decree under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) where an attorney’s misrepresentations about representation and settlement fairness misled the tribunal, constituting fraud upon the court, and held that neither timeliness nor res judicata barred the requested relief.


Coulson v. Coulson, 448 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 1983)