[Cite as Bursiel v. Bursiel , 2021-Ohio-1548.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HURON COUNTY

Stephen T. Bursiel, et al. Court of Appeals Nos. H-19-015 H-20-010 Appellee Trial Court No. DR-2000-0491 v. Michele A. Bursiel (Straka) DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: April 30, 2021 * * * * * Heather L. Carman, for appellee Huron County Child Support Enforcement Agency. Gowri V. Hampole, for appellant.

* * * * * MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant, Michele A. Bu rsiel, now known as Michele A. Straka, appeals the June 14, 2019 judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas (case No. H-19-015) and the April 6, 2020 judgment of the same court (case No. H-20-010). The Huron County Child Support Enfo rcement Agency filed an appellee brief with respect to case No. H-19-015. For the f ollowing reasons, we

affirm.2. I. Background {¶ 2} Stephen T. Bursiel (“Stephen”) and Michele A. Bursiel (“Michele ”) were granted a divorce on December 5, 2000. Stephen and Michele had one child together, B.B., born in January of 2000. At the final divorce hearing, t he court orally ordered Stephen to pay child support of $338.98 per month “plus adminis trative fees.” The judgment entry of divorce provided, however, that Stephen would pay child support of $338.98 per month “including poundage” to continue “until such time as [the] child is emancipated.” {¶ 3} On February 28, 2018, the Huron County Child Support Enforcemen t Agency (“CSEA”) filed a “notice of child support investigation findings and recommendations to terminate child support order” in the divorc e case—Huron County Court of Common Pleas case No. DR-2000-0491—recommending that S tephen’s child support obligation end effective January 5, 2018, because B.B. had turned 18 and was no longer in school. The notice contained calculations reflecting that as of December 31, 2017, Michele had received excess child support payments of $9, 303.49 and CSEA had been overpaid $153.20. The notice provided instructions for re questing an administrative hearing to object to the findings and recommendations, and spec ified that any such request be made in writing to CSEA within 30 days of receiving the notice. CSEA moved for an oral hearing regarding its findings and recommenda tions, which was set for April 18, 2018.3. {¶ 4} On March 26, 2018, Michele filed a “request for administrative termination hearing,” objecting to the findings and recommendations on the basis that (1) the overpayment calculation was wrong, and (2) medical support was not addressed in the findings and recommendation and Stephen owed past-due medical e xpenses. {¶ 5} CSEA, Stephen, and Michele, appeared before the magistrate on A pril 18, 2018. The court addressed the issue of the overpayment raised in CSEA’s notice. It explained that in June of 2000, in connection with an action fo r a civil protection order, the court had issued a child support order requiring Stephen to pay child support of $378.78 per month. When the divorce action was filed, the cour t consolidated the cases. Its final judgment entry of divorce in December of 2000, ultima tely reduced Stephen’s child support obligation to $338.98, “including poundage,” whic h amounted to actual child support of $332.33 per month. But CSEA continued to coll ect $378.78 from Stephen, resulting in the overpayment calculated in the notice filed with the court. The magistrate continued the matter to May 23, 2018, so that Michel e could retain counsel. {¶ 6} With the renewed attention to the child-support obligation, it came to the court’s attention that there was a discrepancy between what was stated orally at the final divorce hearing (i.e., that Stephen’s child support obligation would be $338.98 per month

“

plus administrative fees”) and what appeared in the written judgmen t entry of divorce (i.e., that Stephen’s child support obligation would be $338.98 per month “ including poundage”). (Emphasis added.) On May 21, 2018, the court ente red a nunc pro tunc4. entry, correcting the judgment to reflect what had been stated orally—$338.98 per month plus administrative fees. {¶ 7} The parties appeared for hearing on May 23, 2018; Michele appea red with

counsel. The court identified three issues to be resolved in c onnection with CSEA’s notice: (1) whether child support and medical provisions for B .B. should terminate effective January 5, 2018—which would depend on whether she was continuously enrolled full-time at an accredited high school; (2) whether th ere are arrears or overpayments with respect to the child support obligation; and (3) if there are arrears or overpayments, what to do about them. The court continued the h earing so that Michele could obtain a letter from B.B.’s school verifying her school e nrollment status. The matter was continued to July 11, 2018. {¶ 8} On June 19, 2018, CSEA filed an “amended notice of child suppor t investigation findings and recommendations to terminate child s upport order.” The amended notice continued Stephen’s child support obligations th rough B.B.’s nineteenth birthday and reflected that as of December 31, 2018, Michele wi ll have received excess child support of $3,826.50, and CSEA will have been overpaid by $44.27. Again, the amended notice provided instructions for requesting an administ rative hearing to object to the findings and recommendations, and specified that any suc h request be made in writing to CSEA within 30 days of receipt of the notice. {¶ 9} The parties appeared for hearing on July 11, 2018, before the m agistrate, at which time the magistrate observed that Michele had not request ed an administrative5. hearing to object to the findings and recommendations contained in CSEA’s amended notice. The magistrate inquired whether the parties disputed t he contents of the amended notice, and Michele stated that she did not agree with them. H er position was that child support and medical provision should continue so long as B.B. c ontinues to attend an accredited high school, regardless of the fact that she is 19 y ears old. The magistrate noted that the time for requesting an administrative hearing ha d not yet expired, and it

remanded the matter to CSEA so that Michele could exhaust her a dministrative remedies. This information is reflected in a magistrate’s order journaliz ed on July 24, 2018. {¶ 10} An administrative termination hearing apparently took place on August 6, 2018, and a decision was issued August 9, 2018. CSEA concluded that Stephen’s child support obligation and medical provision should terminate on B. B.’s nineteenth birthday. The hearing decision provided instructions for objecting to the decision: The obligee or obligor may object to the Administrative Termina tion Hearing Decision within 30 Days after the issuance of the Admin istrative Termination Hearing Decision by filing an action requesting a determination as to whether the child support order and medical support provisions should be terminated or whether any other appropriat e determination regarding the order should be made. The action s hould be

filed in the court with Jurisdiction over this order. If neither the obligor nor obligor files an action to object to the Administrative Termination Hearing Decision within the 30 day p eriod, the6. Administrative Hearing Decision is final and the CSEA will forw ard that decision to the court for incorporation in a Court Order. {¶ 11} The next docket entry that appears in case No. DR-2000-0491 is a “brief in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal and to continue the chil d support order until high school graduation,” filed by Michele on September 27, 2018. Th at brief indicates that Michele filed a notice of appeal from the administrative termin ation hearing decision dated August 9, 2018. An unsigned copy of the notice of appeal is attached to the brief. {¶ 12} On March 29, 2019, the magistrate issued a decision adopting CS EA’s August 9, 2018 hearing decision. The magistrate, taking judici al notice, explained that on September 10, 2018, Michele filed a notice of appeal from th e August 9, 2018 hearing decision in a new action—Huron County Court of Common P leas case No. CVF-2018-0703. According to the magistrate, that action was di smissed on January 31, 2019, because the trial court concluded that the August 9, 2018 hearing decision was not a final order. No further action was taken on that case, and n o motion was filed in the divorce proceedings—only the brief in opposition was filed in t he divorce proceedings. The magistrate found that even construing that opposition brief as a motion, it was filed on September 27, 2018 (outside the 30-day period provided by R. C. 3119.91). He concluded, therefore, that the August 9, 2018 hearing decision had become final. He further noted that even if not untimely, Michele’s objections w ould fail under R.C. 3119.86(B) because court-ordered child support cannot continue beyond the child’s nineteenth birthday, even if the child is enrolled full-time at an accredited high school.7. {¶ 13} The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in a judgment journalized on March 29, 2019. Michele filed objections to the magistrate’ s decision on April 12, 2019. The trial court overruled the objections in a judgment j ournalized on June 14, 2019, in large part because no transcript from the magistrate’s hearing was provided, therefore, the court was required to accept the magistrate’s fi ndings of fact. As to the magistrate’s conclusions of law and his application of the fact s to that law, the trial court agreed with the magistrate that Michele failed to challenge the administrative hearing decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in R.C. 31 19.91 and 3119.92. Again, it adopted the magistrate’s decision and deemed the Augu st 9, 2018 hearing

decision final. {¶ 14} Michele appealed the June 14, 2019 judgment, on July 15, 2019; the appeal was docketed as Huron County case No. H-19-015. {¶ 15} Despite having filed her appeal, on November 1, 2019, Michele f iled a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment in the trial court . She stated that counsel was experiencing health problems and she was going through pers onal issues with her minor child, resulting in the failure to submit the required tr anscripts. We remanded the case to the trial court for a ruling on that motion. {¶ 16} The magistrate issued a decision journalized on February 10, 20 20, denying the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Because Michele’s attorney filed deta iled objections and had not moved to withdraw from the case, and because parties genera lly arrange for the preparation of the transcripts at the time they file their obje ctions, the magistrate was not8. persuaded that counsel’s purported health problems played any r ole in the failure to submit the transcripts. And because counsel’s neglect is imput ed to his or her client, the magistrate found that Michele failed to establish grounds entit ling her to relief from judgment. {¶ 17} The trial court adopted the decision the same day, and we reins tated the appeal to our docket. On February 27, 2020, however, Michele f iled objections in the trial court to the magistrate’s decision. In a judgment journa lized on March 6, 2020, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on th e objections because the appeal was pending in this court. We again remanded the case t o the trial court for a decision on Michele’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. In a judgment journalized on April 9, 2020, the trial court overruled the objections as u ntimely. {¶ 18} On April 28, 2020, Michele filed a notice of appeal from the Ap ril 6, 2020 judgment. The appeal was docketed as Huron County case No. H-2 0-010. {¶ 19} In Huron County case No. H-19-015, Michele assigns the followin g errors: Assignment of Error Number One.. [sic]

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND THE

DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS

MUST TERMINATE AT THE AGE OF NINETEEN EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD WAS ATTENDING AN ACCREDITING [sic] HIGH SCHOOL FULL TIME THE CONTRATUAL [sic] LANGUAGE IN THE9. DIVORCE DECREE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED, AS ALSO PROVIDED UNDER ORC 3119.86(C). Assignment of Error Number Two

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND MADE A

DECISION AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

IN GRANTING CREDIT TO APPELLEE/OBLIGOR FOR OVERPAID

CHILD SUPPORT WHERE APPELLEE DID NOT CONTEST THE

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE

FINDING OF OVERPAYMENTS SHOULD BE BARRED BY THE DEFENSES OF LACHES AND ESTOPPEL[.] Assignment of Error Number Three

THE TRIAL COURT ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CONTRARY

TO LAW WHEN IT CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT, WITHOUT ATTACHING THE TRANSCRIPT, THE NUN [sic] PRO TUNC WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF SUBSTANCE THAN A 60(A), CLERICAL MISTAKE TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT[.] Assignment of Error Number Four

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE

AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENT AND IN GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR THE SAME TO APPELLEE, STEPHEN T. BURSIEL WHEN IN10. FACT, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE IMPOUNDMENT FUNDS

AND SUPPORT FOR THE TIME PERIOD JANUARY 2019 TO JUNE 2019[.] {¶ 20} In Huron County case No. H-20-010, Michele assigns the followin g errors: Assignment of Error Number One THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANTS, BY FAILING TO PREPARE AND FILE A MAGSITRATE”S [sic] DECISION THAT COMPLIES WITH OGIO [sic] CIVIL RULE 53[.] Assignment of Error Number Two IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR[.] II. Law and Analysis

A. Case No. H-19-015 {¶ 21} In case No. H-19-015, Michele challenges the trial court’s deci sion (1) terminating Stephen’s child support obligation even though B.B. was still enrolled full-time in high school; (2) concluding that Stephen had overp aid on his child support obligation where Stephen did not challenge the amount of child support; (3) correcting the child support obligation in a nunc pro tunc entry when the error was one of substance and not a clerical mistake; and (4) granting judgment to Stephe n for the overpayment of child support without verifying the calculation of the overpaym ent.11. {¶ 22} CSEA responds that Michele failed to object to the administrati ve termination hearing decision under R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92. I nstead, it claims, Michele filed a civil appeal with the trial court before the de cision became final and appealable, then failed to file the transcripts necessary for t he trial court to review the magistrate’s decision. CSEA insists that the error in the chil d-support award was a clerical error that was properly corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry, and that the court did not err in adopting CSEA’s support calculation given Michel e’s failure to object. And CSEA argues that even if Michele had properly objected to t he decision, R.C. 3119.86(B) states that a child support order shall not remain i n effect beyond the child’s nineteenth birthday.

1. R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92 {¶ 23} At the time this case was pending in the lower court, R.C. 3119 .91 permitted Michele to object to CSEA’s administrative decision “ by filing a motion within thirty days after the issuance of the decision in one of the fo llowing courts requesting a

determination as to whether the order should be terminated or w hether any other appropriate determination regarding the order should be made”: (A) With respect to a court child support order, in the court t hat issued the order or that otherwise has jurisdiction over the or der; (B) With respect to an administrative child support order, the juvenile court or other court with jurisdiction under section 2 101.022 or12. 2301.03 of the Revised Code of the county in which the agency t hat issued

the order is located. R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92 further provide that “if neither the o bligor nor the obligee files the motion within the thirty-day period, the administrative hea ring decision is final and

will be filed with the court or in the administrative case file .” {¶ 24} Instead of filing a motion in the divorce case (case No. DR-200 0-0491) within 30 days of the administrative decision, Michele filed a notice of appeal in a new civil case (case No. CVF-2018-0703). This was problematic for two reasons: (1) Michele’s failure to file a motion within 30 days in the co urt with jurisdiction over the order (i.e., in the divorce case) rendered the decision final u nder R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92; and (2) there was no final appealable order at the tim e she filed a notice of appeal in the new case because that case was filed within 30 da ys of the decision—and under R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92, the administrative decision did not become final until 30 days after it was rendered. In other words, Michele failed to file a motion in the

divorce case before the administrative termination decision bec ame final, and she purported to appeal the decision in a new action before the dec ision became final and, therefore, appealable. {¶ 25} Michele does not address her failure to utilize the procedure s et forth under R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92. And unfortunately, her failure to co mply with those statutes resulted in the August 9, 2018 administrative termination heari ng decision becoming final 30 days after it was decided. Because she did not file a timel y motion challenging the13. administrative termination decision in the divorce action, we a re unable to address the merits of her first, second, and fourth assignments of error. See A.C. v. V.G. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96759, 2011-Ohio-6285, ¶ 15 (finding no error in t rial court’s refusal to hold hearing where objections were not filed within the thirty- day period to trigger the hearing requirement under R.C. 3119.92).

2. Nunc Pro Tunc {¶ 26} As to Michele’s third assignment of error, Civ.R. 60(A) permits a trial court, by motion or on its own initiative, to correct clerical mistakes in judgments and errors arising from oversight or omission. We have recognized that this mechanism may be used to correct errors in judgment entries so that the recor d “speaks the truth” and reflects what the court actually decided. Bracken v. Bracken , 6th Dist. Huron No. H-15-008, 2015-Ohio-5307, ¶ 11; Drenning v. Blue Ribbon Homes , 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-06-001, 2007-Ohio-1323, ¶ 93. “The issue of whether a trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment improperly modifies its previous judgment raises a que stion of law, which we

review de novo.” Bracken at ¶ 10, citing Neel v. Neel, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 66441, 1994 WL 677434, *2 (Dec. 1, 1994). {¶ 27} Here, the trial court’s May 21, 2018 nunc pro tunc judgment mer ely corrects the judgment to reflect what happened at the December 5, 2000 hearing. At that hearing, the court ordered Stephen to pay “$338.98 plus administrative fees ”—not “$338.98 including poundage .” (Emphasis added.) The nunc pro tunc judgment was properly used to correct this discrepancy.14. {¶ 28} Accordingly, we find Michele’s third assignment of error in cas e No.

H-19-015 not well-taken.

B. Case No. H-20-010 {¶ 29} In her appeal docketed as case No. H-20-010, Michele argues tha t the trial court erred in denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motion. She insists th at her objections could not be deemed untimely because the magistrate’s decision did not co ntain a notice informing the parties of the deadline for filing objections and the effec t of failing to file objections. Alternatively, Michele argues that the trial court committed pl ain error when it failed to consider—for purposes of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion—that her attor ney had suffered a sudden health emergency requiring emergency surgery for an aneu rysm, 1 thereby excusing her failure to file transcripts.

1. Civ.R. 53 Notice {¶ 30} Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii), a magistrate’s decision must be in writing, captioned as a magistrate’s decision, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later than three days after the decision is filed. The decision must indicate “conspicuously” that “a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual f inding or legal conclusion

1 Michele’s affidavit in support of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion stat es only that counsel was in ill health and that she was out of town to obtain treatment for a seriously ill minor child. No dates or other details are provided.15. * * * unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Id. {¶ 31} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) requires that objections be in writing an d filed within 14 days of the filing of the magistrate decision. The objectio ns must be “supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate rele vant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available,” a nd the transcript must be filed within 30 days after filing the objections unless the court gra nts an extension in writing. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). A party may not assign as error on ap peal the court’s adoption of the magistrate’s factual findings or legal conclusions—except f or plain error—unless the party has filed objections to that finding or conclusion. Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). {¶ 32} Here, Michele claims in her first assignment of error that the magistrate’s decision did not include the required Civ.R. 53 notice. She ma intains that because the decision does not contain the required notice, she was excused from filing objections within 14 days, thus the trial court erred in denying her objec tions as untimely. She argues that the remedy here is to remand the case to the trial court for consideration of her objections. {¶ 33} While Michele correctly states that the magistrate’s decision d oes not contain the required Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) notice, our review of the record reveals that the trial court judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision (de cided the same day and served together with the magistrate’s decision) does contain the notice. Thus, the absence of the notice in the magistrate’s decision is harmless because the trial court16. judgment alerted Michele to the fact that objections were due w ithin 14 days of the magistrate’s decision. See, e.g., Watley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1128, 2007-Ohio-1841, ¶ 12 (“Because the tria l court gave Watley adequate notice of the requirements in Civ.R. 53 in its judgmen t entry, he is not relieved from compliance therewith by now claiming that he did not recei ve the magistrate’s decision.”). We, therefore, find Michele’s first assignment of error not well-taken.

2. Plain Error {¶ 34} Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “[e]xcept for a claim of plain er ror, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” In her second assignment of error, Michel e argues that the failure to file the transcripts in support of her objections should have b een deemed excusable neglect, and the trial court committed plain error in ruling ot herwise. {¶ 35} The Supreme Court of Ohio has instructed that when applying the doctrine of plain error in a civil case, “the doctrine is sharply limite d to the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underly ing judicial process itself * * *. The plain error doctrine should never be applied to re verse a civil judgment simply because a reviewing court disagrees with the result obta ined in the trial court

* * *.” Goldfuss v. Davidson , 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997). (Emphasis sic.).17. {¶ 36} Under Civ.R. 60(B), a party may be relieved from a final judgme nt for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsi c), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospec tive application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. {¶ 37} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that to prevail on a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), the moving party must demonst rate: “(1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is gran ted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) thro ugh (5); and (3) the motion

is made within a reasonable time.” GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. Arc Industries, Inc. , 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. We review a trial court judgment denying a motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of

discretion standard. Kerger & Hartman, LLC v. Ajami , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-16-1135, 2017-Ohio-7352, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court’s attitude is18. unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶ 38} Michele relies on Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and argues that her attorney’ s failure to submit the required transcripts constituted excusable neglect. The Supreme Court of Ohio generally defines excusable neglect in the negative: “a d efendant’s inaction is not excusable neglect if it can be deemed a ‘“complete disregar d for the judicial system.”’” Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. , 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996), quoting GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. , 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 153, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976). Where a party is represented, the party bea rs a greater burden to show excusable neglect. State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 140 Ohio St.3d 23, 2014-Ohio-2353, 14 N.E.3d 1003, ¶ 24. “[A]ttorney conduct falling ‘substantially

below what is reasonable under the circumstances’ constitutes i nexcusable neglect.” Hai v. Flower Hosp. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1423, 2008-Ohio-5295, ¶ 21, quoting GTE at 152. Thus, an attorney’s conduct will be deemed inexcusable “i f it can be labeled a complete disregard for the judicial system or if the conduct falls substantially below what

was reasonable under the circumstances.” State ex rel. Jackson at ¶ 25. {¶ 39} In determining whether excusable neglect has occurred, the cour t must take into consideration the surrounding facts and circumstances. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v.

Adams , 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988). “If the movant fails to apprise the court of those surrounding facts and circumstances and the cour t subsequently overrules the motion, that judgment cannot be characterized as an abuse o f discretion.” Id.19. {¶ 40} Here, even if we assume that an attorney’s failure to submit th e required transcripts may be excused because he or she was experiencing h ealth problems,

Michele’s affidavit contains insufficient details to show that counsel’s health was, in fact, the reason for his failure to submit those transcripts. She pr ovided no dates and no description of the nature or length of counsel’s illness. See Terlau v. N & D Restaurants,

Inc. , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26791, 2016-Ohio-4725, ¶ 19 (“Based o n the record before us, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discr etion * * * in failing to conclude, when it ruled on the motion for relief from judgment based on the information before it, that counsel’s unspecified ‘health issue’ constitute d ‘excusable neglect.’”). We, therefore, find no plain error in the trial court’s decision to adopt the magistrate’s decision, which rejected Michele’s claim of excusable neglect. {¶ 41} Accordingly, we find Michele’s two assignments of error in case No.

H-20-010 not well-taken.

III. Conclusion {¶ 42} As to Michele’s first, second, and fourth assignments of error in case No. H-19-015, Michele failed to utilize the procedure for objecting to the administrative

termination decision set forth under R.C. 3119.91 and 3119.92. Her failure to comply with those statutes resulted in the August 9, 2018 administrati ve termination hearing decision becoming final 30 days after it was decided, and rende rs us unable to address the merits of those assignments of error. As to her third assignme nt of error, the trial court’s May 21, 2018 nunc pro tunc judgment merely corrects the judgmen t to accurately reflect20. what happened at the December 5, 2000 hearing. A nunc pro tunc judgment was the proper tool for making the correction. We find Michele’s four assignments of error not well-taken and affirm the June 14, 2019 judgment of the Huron C ounty Court of Common Pleas (case No. H-19-015). {¶ 43} As to Michele’s first assignment of error in case No. H-20-010, the magistrate’s decision does not contain the required Civ.R. 53(D )(3)(a)(iii) notice, but the trial court’s judgment (decided the same day and served togethe r with the magistrate’s decision) does contain the notice. Thus, the absence of the notice in the mag istrate’s decision was harmless. As to her second assignment of error, e ven assuming that an attorney’s failure to submit required transcripts may be excuse d because he or she was experiencing health problems, Michele’s affidavit provided no d ates and no description of the nature or length of counsel’s illness, and, therefore, c ontains insufficient details to show that counsel’s health was, in fact, the reason for his fai lure to submit those transcripts. We find Michele’s two assignments of error not we ll-taken and affirm the April 6, 2020 judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Plea s (case No. H-20-010). {¶ 44} Michele is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.

Judgments affirmed.21. Bursiel v. Bursiel C .A. Nos. H-19-015 H-20-010

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J. _____________________

__________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.

_______________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.