[Cite as Napier v. Sparks, 2013-Ohio-4500.] 

 

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 11, 2013 

Janice H. Barr, for Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Dwayne Sparks, pro se. 

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

TERESA NAPIER,

 Plaintiff, 

 and 

HAMILTON COUNTY CHILD 

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 vs. 

DWAYNE SPARKS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-130084 

TRIAL NO. F89-1111z 

O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

HILDEBRANDT, Judge. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement 

Agency (“the CSEA”) appeals the trial court’s judgment, which “reject[ed] the 

magistrate’s decision and remand[ed] it for findings of fact and conclusions of law 

based on an accurate computation of child support arrearages.” Because we 

determine that we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we dismiss it. 

{¶2} In 1989, defendant-appellee Dwayne Sparks was ordered to pay child 

support in the amount of $86.67 per month for his daughter, Katrina Napier. In 

1995, he was held in contempt for failure to pay child support and the court ordered 

him to pay $43.33 a month on the arrearage (“the arrears order”). In June 2006, the 

juvenile court terminated the child-support order because Katrina had graduated 

from high school, and set the arrears order at $130 per month. In 2011, Sparks 

moved to modify the arrears order based on his assertion that his only income was 

his social security benefits, and the fact that he was supporting another child that 

lived with him. The magistrate denied the motion. 

{¶3} Sparks filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which the trial 

court sustained. The trial court rejected the magistrate’s decision, and remanded the 

cause for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, the trial court 

indicated, among other things, that the record was unclear as to how the amount of 

the arrearage was determined and whether Sparks was receiving, as part of his social 

security benefits, Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) or Social Security Disability 

Insurance Income. The court noted that the arrearage could not be garnished from 

SSI benefits. 

{¶4} The CSEA now appeals bringing forth a single assignment of error, 

arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the magistrate’s decision 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

and remanding the cause for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Unfortunately, 

we do not reach this issue as we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 

{¶5} Before this court can exercise jurisdiction over an appeal, an order of 

a lower court must be a final, appealable order and meet the requirements of R.C. 

2505.02. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 547 N.E.2d 64 

(1989). If the order being challenged is not final, then the court must dismiss the 

appeal. See General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540 

N.E.2d 266 (1989). “A magistrate’s decision that has not been adopted or modified 

by the trial court is not a final order.” Roberts v. Skaggs, 176 Ohio App.3d 251, 

2008-Ohio-1954, 891 N.E.2d 827, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.). Instead, a magistrate’s decision 

remains interlocutory until the trial court enters a judgment that determines all the 

claims for relief in the action or determines that there is not just reason for delay. 

See Yantek v. Coach Builders Ltd., Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060601, 2007-

Ohio-5126, ¶ 14. 

{¶6} Here, the trial court did not adopt or modify the magistrate’s decision. 

Instead, the juvenile court determined that a final judgment could not be reached 

based on the record, and remanded the cause to the magistrate to issue findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. Because the magistrate’s decision was neither adopted 

nor modified by the trial court, it is not a final appealable order. Thus, we hereby 

dismiss the appeal. 

Appeal dismissed. 

HENDON, P.J., and CUNNINGHAM, J., concur. 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.