Opinion
C. A. 22CA0068-M
07-10-2023
C.N. Appellee v. K.N. Appellant
YU MI KIM-REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. MARC HERTRICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 22 DV 0137
APPEARANCES:
YU MI KIM-REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MARC HERTRICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
FLAGG LANZINGER, Judge.
{¶1} K.N. appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In June 2022, C.N. sought a domestic violence civil protection order ("DVCPO") against her former husband, K.N. After a full hearing, a magistrate granted C.N. a DVCPO against K.N., effective until 2027. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision. K.N. did not file objections to the magistrate's decision. K.N. now appeals, raising three assignments of error for this Court's review. This Court has combined K.N.'s assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT ALLOWED TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PAST INCIDENTS, WHICH ARE BARRED BY RES JUDICATA.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT DECISION TO GRANT THE DVCPO WAS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED [K.N.] SHALL NOT POSSESS, USE, CARRY, OR OBTAIN FIREARMS, AND AMMUNITION AND NOT TO CONSUME ALCOHOL IN ITS DVCPO.
{¶3} In his assignments of error, K.N. challenges the trial court's decision to grant C.N. a DVCPO, as well as the terms of the DVCPO. Under Civ.R .65.1(G), a trial court's order that adopts, modifies, or rejects a magistrate's decision to deny or grant a protection order is a final appealable order. Nonetheless, "a party must timely file objections to such an order * * * prior to filing an appeal[.]" Id. Those objections must be specifically tailored to the procedure set forth in Civ.R. 65.1, and the objecting party must demonstrate:
that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order, or that the credible evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection order, or that the magistrate abused the magistrate's discretion in including or failing to include specific terms in the protection order.Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii). "[F]iling objections pursuant to [the current version of] Civ.R.
65.1(F)(3)(d) is mandatory." V. O. v. S. C. L., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29773, 2021-Ohio-683, ¶ 6. Because K.N. did not file objections to the magistrate's decision as required by Civ.R. 65.1, this Court cannot consider the merits of his arguments on appeal. Id. at ¶ 8. Accordingly, K.N.'s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶4} K.N.'s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
SUTTON, P. J., CARR, J., CONCUR.