Quezada v. Vizcaino

[Cite as Quezada v. Vizcaino, 2022-Ohio-2683.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA RAFAEL DEJESUS QUEZADA, JR., : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111124 v. : PAMELA ALEXANDRA PENA : VIZCAINO, Defendant-Appellant. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 4, 2022 Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DR-21-383916 Appearances: N.P. Weiss Law, Nicholas P. Weiss, and Bridget M. Sciscento, for appellant. LISA B. FORBES, P.J.: In this accelerated appeal, Pamela Alexandra Pena Vizcaino (“Vizcaino”) appeals from the domestic relations court’s denial of her unopposed Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the lower court’s judgment. I. Facts and Procedural History In May 2017, Rafael DeJesus Quezada, Jr. (“Quezada”) and Vizcaino were married in the Dominican Republic. On January 25, 2021, Quezada filed a complaint for annulment or, in the alternative, divorce from Vizcaino in the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. This complaint states in part that Quezada’s “consent for marriage was obtained by fraud on the part of” Vizcaino. The domestic relations court held a hearing on this complaint on April 27, 2021. At this hearing, the court stated that the proceeding was for a “dissolution.” However, the bailiff corrected the judge, who clarified that the proceeding was for an annulment. Although Vizcaino did not file an answer to the complaint, she appeared pro se at this hearing. Vizcaino communicated through an interpreter, who translated everything Quezada, his attorney, and the court said so Vizcaino could understand it, as well as translated Vizcaino’s testimony so everyone else could understand what she said. Quezada testified that when he brought Vizcaino back to the United States after they were married, Vizcaino went to Boston for a year and a half and lived with another man. She returned to Cleveland to live with Quezada five months prior to the parties’ second immigration interview and “wanted to go on vacation and take a whole bunch of pictures together * * *.” Quezada testified that he was “asking the Court to end this marriage, period, if it’s divorce or annulment.” The court and Vizcaino had the following exchange: THE COURT: Okay. And [Quezada] is seeking an annulment saying that the marriage was obtained in a fraudulent manner, do you understand that? VIZCAINO (INTERPRETER): No. *** THE COURT: Would you like to end the marriage today with Rafael? VIZCAINO: No. At the hearing, the court granted the annulment and dissolved and terminated the marriage. The court issued a “judgment entry of annulment” on April 28, 2021, finding that “the marriage was obtained fraudulently” and ordered that “the marriage contract * * * between the parties is hereby annulled.” Vizcaino did not file a direct appeal from this final judgment. Over six months later, on November 10, 2021, Vizcaino filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), arguing that “there was a mutual mistake between the parties …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals