[Cite as Evergreen Alliance Golf Ltd. v. Ollom , 2011-Ohio-5076.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )

EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF LIMITED, LP Appellee

v.

ROBERT OLLOM Appellant C.A. No. 10CA0117-M

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 10 CVH 01161

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: October 3, 2011

DICKINSON, Judge.

INTRODUCTION {¶1} Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited L.P., doing business as Weymouth Country Club, sued Robert Ollom for alleged failure to pay dues. The trial court granted summary judgment to Evergreen for $10,074.37, plus interest and costs, and Mr. Ollo m has appealed. Mr. Ollom’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly entered judgment following its reference of this matter to a magistrate without waiting for the magistrate’s decision and without allowing the parties time to object to the magist rate’s decision. This Court affirms because the trial court was per mitted under Rule 53 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure to enter judgment within the 14 days for the filing of objections.

BACKGROUND {¶2} Evergreen sued Mr. Ollom in the Medina Municipal Court for alleged failure to pay dues totaling $10,074.37. At the same time it se rved its complaint, it served on Mr. Ollom2

interrogatories, a request for admissions, and a request for production of documents. Mr. Ollom responded by sending the trial cour t and Evergreen’s lawyer a letter in which he denied that he owed Evergreen the amount sought, although he acknowledged that he may have owed $144.23 for food and beverages. The trial court apparen tly treated Mr. Ollom’s letter as an answer and referred the matter to a magistrate. Evergreen moved for summary judgment based on Mr. Ollom’s failure to respond to its request for admissions. Mr. Ollom, who was at the time proceeding pro se, failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court filed a document captioned “Magistrate’s Decision – Judgme nt Entry,” signed by both the magistrate and the trial court judge, granting summary ju dgment to Evergreen for $10,074.37, plus interest and costs. Six days later, Mr. Ollom, now repr esented by a lawyer, moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court denied that request, and Mr. Ollom timely appealed to

this Court.

DISCUSSION {¶3} Mr. Ollom’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly entered judgment following its reference of this ma tter to a magistrate without waiting for the magistrate’s decision and without allowing the par ties time to object to the magistrate’s decision. Under Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(i) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are afforded fourteen days within which to file wr itten objections to a magistrate’s decision. Rule 53(D)(4)(e)(i) provides that “[a] court may enter a judgment either during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections to a ma gistrate’s decision or after the fourteen days have expired.” That same rule further provides that, “[i]f the c ourt enters a judgment during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections, the timely filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of the3

judgment until the court disposes of those objec tions and vacates, modifi es, or adheres to the judgment previously entered.” Civ. R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). {¶4} The “Magistrate’s Decision – Judgment Entry,” signed by both the magistrate and the trial court judge, was both a magistrate’s d ecision and judgment. Under Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(i), Mr. Ollom had fourteen days following the filing of that document within which to object to the magistrate’s decision. If he had done so, the ju dgment would have been stayed until the trial court ruled on his objections. He failed, however, to file any objections within the time allowed. {¶5} The trial court neither en tered judgment without wa iting for the magistrate’s decision nor failed to allow the pa rties time to object to the magi strate’s decision. Mr. Ollom’s assignment of error is overruled.

CONCLUSION {¶6} Mr. Ollom’s assignment of error is ove rruled. The judgment of the Medina Municipal Court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Medina Municipal Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent 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 (E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is4

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.

CLAIR E. DICKINSON FOR THE COURT

BELFANCE, P. J. MOORE, J. CONCUR

APPEARANCES: JOHN C. OBERHOLTZER, and CHRISTOPHER L. WETHERBEE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant. GEORGE J. ARGIE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.