Documents attached to an appellate brief are not properly part of the appellate record, and we cannot consider an attachment unless it appears in the trial court's record. Id.; Willis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 15CA13, 2016-Ohio-1593, 50 N.E.3d 581, fn. 1 , citing Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, 846 N.E.2d 582 (4th Dist.), fn. 2. In State v. Hooks, the Supreme Court noted:
Documents attached to an appellate brief are not properly part of the appellate record, and we cannot consider an attachment unless it appears in the trial court's record. Id.; Willis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2016-Ohio-1593, 50 N.E.3d 581, fn. 1 (4th Dist.), citing Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, 846 N.E.2d 582, fn. 2. {¶7} Similarly, factual assertions in a party's brief, but not in any submission filed with the trial court, do not constitute part of the record on appeal, and we are precluded from considering such assertions in deciding the merits of an appeal.
However, we may not consider exhibits attached to appellate briefs that are not part of the record. Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, 846 N.E.2d 582, fn. 2 (4th.Dist.). App.R. 9(A) limits our consideration to the "original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court."
However, we may not consider exhibits attached to appellate briefs that are not part of the record. Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, 846 N.E.2d 582, fn. 2 (4th Dist.). App.R. 9(A) limits our consideration to the “original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court.”
Scinto v. Scinto, 10th Dist. No. 09AP–5, 2010-Ohio-1377, 2010 WL 1248298, ¶ 4, citing Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (1989) (“The standard of review in domestic relations cases is whether the trial court abused its discretion.”). See also Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, 846 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 12 (4th Dist.) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard of review to trial court's determination whether the plaintiff-appellee had established grounds for divorce). Moreover, in Buckles v. Buckles, 46 Ohio App.3d 102, 116, 546 N.E.2d 950 (10th Dist.1988), we recognized in a divorce case that the trial court has a “large measure of discretion to determine the sufficiency of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony” and that “[a] trial court has broad discretion to determine the proper grounds for divorce, and such finding should not be overturned in the absence of any showing that there was an abuse of discretion of such a nature as to * * * prejudicially affect the complaining party.”
(Citation omitted.) Brokaw v. Brokaw, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92729, 2010-Ohio-1053, ¶ 5; Moser v. Moser, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2005-09-109, 2006-Ohio-5381, ¶ 29 (where a party admitted incompatibility, the court of appeals could not "say the trial court's decision to grant a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility rather than adultery was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable"); Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.) (where a party admitted incompatibility and to living separate and apart, he was "not in a position to argue that the court's decision to grant a divorce on those grounds constitutes an abuse of discretion"). {¶51} The fourth assignment of error is without merit.
The trial court has the discretion to hold a hearing before adopting or rejecting a magistrate's report. Civ. R. 53(D)(4)(b) and Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723, ¶ 13. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to consider this evidence since there is no explanation as to why it was not admitted to the magistrate. Appellant's second assignment of error is found not well-taken.
A trial court has broad discretion to determine the proper grounds for a divorce. Dagostino v. Dagostino, 165 Ohio App.3d 365, 2006-Ohio-723; see, also, Lehman v. Lehman (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 68, 70-71; Buckles v. Buckles (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 102. Therefore, we will not reverse the trial court's determination on this question unless we find the court was acting in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner when rendering its decision.