Case Title: Rothman v. Rothman

Citation: 2009-Ohio-6410

Docket Number: 20082056

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Rothman v. Rothman, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6410.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6410 
ROTHMAN, APPELLANT v. ROTHMAN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Rothman v. Rothman, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6410.] 
Litigants in Ohio are entitled to an appeal from a trial court judgment when a 
notice of appeal is timely filed — Appellant was wrongly deprived of his 
right to appeal when this court’s decision in Wilson v. Wilson was applied 
retroactively to his case. 
(No. 2008-2056 — Submitted June 16, 2009 — Decided December 10, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Lorain County Court of Appeals, No. 07CA009295,  
2008-Ohio-4501. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J. 
{¶ 1} The question in this case is whether the appellant was deprived of 
his right to appeal when a decision by this court was applied retroactively to his 
case.  We conclude that he was and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Facts and Background 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Eric Rothman, and appellee, Kathleen Rothman, were 
married in 1973.  In June 2002, the Rothmans separated; Kathleen subsequently 
filed for divorce.  On June 19, 2007, the trial judge issued a judgment entry 
granting the divorce and ordering Kathleen to submit a qualified domestic 
relations order (“QDRO”) within 30 days.  When Kathleen did not submit a 
QDRO, Eric sought and received a 30-day extension to submit his own proposed 
QDRO, which he submitted on August 24, 2007.  On November 13, 2007, the 
court issued a QDRO in the case. 
{¶ 3} On November 19, 2007, Eric Rothman filed a notice of appeal.  
The next day, this court released Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-
Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, in which we held that “[a] divorce decree that 
provides for the issuance of a [QDRO] is a final, appealable order, even before the 
QDRO is issued.”  Id. at syllabus.  The court of appeals, applying Wilson 
retroactively, concluded that the judgment entry issued on June 19, 2007, in this 
case was a final, appealable order.  The court therefore concluded that Eric’s 
notice of appeal, which was filed five months after the judgment entry, had been 
filed outside the 30-day time frame for filing an appeal under App.R. 4(A), and it 
dismissed the appeal.  We granted Eric’s discretionary appeal. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} Litigants in Ohio are entitled to an appeal from a trial court 
judgment when a notice of appeal is filed within the time allowed.  App.R. 3(A).  
See Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d. 80, 84-85, 523 
N.E.2d 851.  The right to an appeal “is a property interest and a litigant may not 
be deprived of that interest without due process of law.”  Id. at paragraph one of 
the syllabus.  Furthermore, “[t]he opportunity to file a timely appeal * * * is 
rendered meaningless when reasonable notice of an appealable order is not given.”  
Moldovan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Welfare Dept. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 293, 295, 25 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
OBR 343, 496 N.E.2d 466; State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 
2008-Ohio-1444, 884 N.E.2d 1062, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 5} The judgment entry in the Rothman divorce was issued in Lorain 
County, which is within the Ninth Judicial District.  Prior to our decision in 
Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, the settled law in 
the Ninth District was that a divorce decree was not a final, appealable order until 
a required QDRO had been issued.  See Miller v. Miller, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0068-
M, 2008-Ohio-2106, ¶ 8 (“Prior to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in [Wilson], 
it was this Court's position that a divorce decree was not a final, appealable order 
until the trial court also adopted the parties' QDRO(s)”).  Thus, Eric could not 
have appealed from the judgment until the QDRO was issued by the trial court, 
because, according to the then existing case law, there would have been no final, 
appealable order to appeal.  Pursuant to the court of appeals’ decision, Eric also 
could not properly file a notice of appeal after the QDRO was issued, because the 
QDRO had not been filed until more than 30 days after the date of the divorce 
decree, rendering the notice of appeal untimely.  So even though Eric had a right 
to appeal the trial court judgment, the court of appeals determined that there was 
no time before or after the QDRO was issued when he could properly have filed a 
notice of appeal. 
{¶ 6} “It is well established that every injured party ‘shall have remedy 
by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.’ 
Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution.”  Moldovan, 25 Ohio St.3d at 295, 25 
OBR 343, 496 N.E.2d 466.  In Moldovan, we concluded that notice by publication 
did not provide reasonable notice of an appealable order, as required by Section 
16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.  Id.  Today we conclude that the right to 
appeal must include a reasonable opportunity to file a timely appeal.  As 
discussed, in this case, Eric did not have a reasonable opportunity to file a timely 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
appeal; an appeal would have been unripe before the issuance of the QDRO and 
untimely after the issuance of the QDRO.  We conclude, therefore, that Eric was 
deprived of his right to an appeal.  A party’s right to appeal is rendered 
meaningless unless he has a reasonable opportunity to file a timely notice of 
appeal. 
{¶ 7} We need not address the court of appeals’ conclusion that Wilson 
should be applied retroactively.  Even if Wilson should be applied retroactively, it 
cannot be applied retroactively when it would render a party’s right to appeal 
meaningless. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 8} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the 
cause to the court of appeals with instructions that it allow Eric Rothman a 
reasonable opportunity to file a notice of appeal. 
{¶ 9} We recognize that there may be similarly-situated litigants in other 
cases where appeals from a divorce decree that provides for the issuance of a 
QDRO have been dismissed based on the retroactive application of Wilson.  Such 
litigants should be accorded the opportunity to file a notice of appeal.  
Accordingly, the courts of appeals are instructed to allow any similarly-situated 
litigants the opportunity to file notices of appeal, provided that such notices are 
filed on or before March 31, 2010. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
CUPP, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
Robert Cabrera, for appellant. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
Patrick D. Riley, for appellee. 
______________________