From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nadaud v. Nadaud

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County
Mar 31, 2000
No. 99-T-0087 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2000)

Opinion

No. 99-T-0087 ACCELERATED.

March 31, 2000.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 49159.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.

ATTY. SUSAN G. MARUCA, 114 East Front Street, P.O. Box 177, Youngstown, OH 44503-0177, For Plaintiff-Appellee.

ATTY. TODD L. BRAINARD, 925 State Road, N.W., Warren, OH 44483, For Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGES: HON. ROBERT A. NADER, P.J., HON. WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., HON. MARY CACIOPPO, J., Ret., Ninth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.


OPINION


Appellant, Paul Nadaud, appeals from the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which dismissed his motion for modification of parental rights and responsibilities.

The parties were granted a final decree of divorce on February 23, 1993. In the divorce decree, appellee, Linda Nadaud, was designated the residential parent of the parties' four minor children: Melissa, born January 7, 1978; Erin, born May 2, 1980; Stephen, born January 27, 1982; and Peter, born May 14, 1985. On May 7, 1999, appellant filed a motion for modification of parental rights and responsibilities. In the motion, he alleged that a change in circumstances "of the minor child and/or the residential parent" had occurred and requested that he be designated as the residential parent of Peter. On June 7, 1999, appellant filed an amended motion for modification of parental rights, adding a request to recalculate child support because Erin had graduated from high school. A magistrate heard the matter on June 17, 1999 and filed her decision, in which he recommended that appellant's motion for modification of parental rights and responsibilities be dismissed because appellant failed to file with his motion an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 3109.27(A).

"Each party in a parenting proceeding, in the party's first pleading or in an affidavit attached to that pleading, shall give information under oath as to the child's present address, the places the child has lived within the last five years, and the name and present address of each person with whom the child has lived during that period. * * *." The pleading or affidavit must also include additional information, such as: (1) whether the party has participated in other child custody proceedings; whether the party knows of custody proceedings pending in other states, and (3) whether the party has been convicted of child abuse or neglect.

On June 25, 1999, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and ordered that appellant's motion seeking a modification of the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities be dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 3109.27. From this judgment, appellant assigns the following error:

"The trial court committed prejudicial error when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to proceed and dismissed defendant-appellant's post-decree motion for modification of allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for failure of defendant-appellant to file a 3109.27 affidavit."

In appellant's sole assignment of error, he contends that the trial court improperly dismissed his motion because compliance with the affidavit requirement of R.C. 3109.27 is not necessary in intra-state post-decree proceedings. A review of the record demonstrates that appellant did not file objections to the magistrate's decision. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) provides in part:

"A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule."

It is well-settled law in Ohio that if a party fails to object to a conclusion of law or finding of fact issued by a magistrate, the party is precluded from then raising the issue for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Waltimire v. Waltimire (1989), 55 Ohio App.3d 275, 564 N.E.2d 119; Harbeitner v. Harbeitner (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 485, 641 N.E.2d 206. Because appellant did not file objections to the magistrate's decision, we are unable to reach the merits of appellant's assignment of error.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.

_______________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT A. NADER

O'NEILL, J., CACIOPPO, J., Ret., Ninth Appellate District, sitting by assignment, concur.


Summaries of

Nadaud v. Nadaud

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County
Mar 31, 2000
No. 99-T-0087 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2000)
Case details for

Nadaud v. Nadaud

Case Details

Full title:LINDA NADAUD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL NADAUD, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County

Date published: Mar 31, 2000

Citations

No. 99-T-0087 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2000)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Thomas

This court has held that "[i]t is well-settled law in Ohio that if a party fails to object to a conclusion of…

In the Matter of Stevens

It is well-settled law in Ohio that if a party fails to object to a conclusion of law or finding of fact…