[Cite as Hashime-Bazlamit v. Bazlamit, 2009-Ohio-4445.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

HARDIN COUNTY 

 

SAMAR AL HASHIME-BAZLAMIT, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 6-09-01 

 v. 

SUBHI BAZLAMIT, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court 

Domestic Relations Division 

Trial Court No. 20083008 DRE 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: August 31, 2009 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Jennifer S. Easterday for Appellant 

C. Bradford Kelley for Appellee 
Case No. 6-09-01 

2

PRESTON, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant-plaintiff, Samar Al Hashime-Bazlamit (hereinafter 

“appellant”) appeals the judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas 

affirming the magistrate’s decision to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint for 

divorce against appellee-defendant, Subhi Bazlamit (hereinafter “appellee”). For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} Appellant and appellee were married on November 27, 1993, in 

Amman, Jordan. At the time of the marriage, appellee was a legal resident of the 

United States, and subsequent to the marriage, the parties moved to the United 

States and appellant became an American citizen sometime in 2000. The parties 

lived in Ohio for most of the duration of the marriage, and in addition, while the 

couple lived in Lima, Ohio, two children were born of the marriage, Mohammed 

(d.o.b. 6/6/95), and Sarah (d.o.b. 9/18/03). 

{¶3} In May 2007, the appellant and her two children traveled to Amman, 

Jordan to visit family. On or about June 17, 2007, appellee traveled to Amman, 

Jordan and filed for divorce. On or about June 24, 2007, appellant was issued a 

document of revocable divorce by proxy by the Supreme Judge Department, 

Sharia Court of Mid Amman. According to the terms of the divorce and under the 

laws of Jordan, the divorce was revocable for a period of 30 days and a three 

month waiting period was imposed before the divorce became final. In addition to 
Case No. 6-09-01 

3

filing for divorce, appellee put a hold on the passports of their minor children, 

which prohibited them from returning to the United States. 

{¶4} On January 17, 2008, appellant filed a complaint to establish custody 

and divide marital assets in the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic 

Relations Division. On February 6, 2008, appellant filed an amended complaint 

for divorce with children. A jurisdictional hearing was held on October 20, 2008, 

and both parties submitted motions before the court. On December 1, 2008, the 

magistrate filed a decision dismissing the appellant’s amended complaint for 

divorce. On December 16, 2008, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision 

and dismissed the case with prejudice. 

{¶5} Appellant now appeals and raises three assignments of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I 

UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF “COMITY” OHIO COURTS 

ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE THE JORDANIAN 

DIVORCE DECREE. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II 

THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS 

MATTER, AS THE APPELLANT FULFILLED THE 

REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN R.C. 3105.03 AND R.C. 

3105.01(I). 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III 

EVEN IF THIS COURT FINDS THAT JORDAN HAD 

JURISDICTION OVER THE STATUS OF THE MARRIAGE 

AND VALIDATES THE JORDANIAN DIVORCE DECREE, 
Case No. 6-09-01 

4

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER ANY ISSUES 

ATTENDANT TO THE MARRIAGE. 

{¶6} Before considering appellant’s assignments of error, we must first 

address appellant’s failure to file a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision 

pursuant to Civ.R. 53. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that if a party failed to file 

a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision, “a party shall not assign as error on 

appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion.” 

{¶7} Here, a jurisdictional hearing was held on October 20, 2008, before 

the magistrate. Subsequently, both parties submitted briefs and documents before 

the court in support of their respective positions on whether the court had 

jurisdiction. (Doc. Nos. 26-28). On December 1, 2008, the magistrate issued its 

decision and found that the Jordan divorce decree was valid and entitled to 

recognition as it related to the divorce of the parties. (Dec. 1, 2008 Mag. Dec., 

Doc. No. 29). In addition, the magistrate found that the attendant issues, such as 

custody, child support, visitation, alimony, and dowry, had been resolved by the 

Jordan divorce proceedings, and as such, there were no other issues over which the 

court would have jurisdiction to decide. (Id.). Thus, the magistrate recommended 

that appellant’s amended complaint for divorce be dismissed, and at the end of its 

decision, stated the following: 

OBJECTIONS TO THIS DECISION SHALL BE FILED WITH 

THE COURT, IN WRITING, WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE 
Case No. 6-09-01 

5

DATE OF THE FILE-STAMPED DATE OF THIS DECISION 

PURSUANT TO OHIO CIVIL RULE 53. 

A PARTY SHALL NOT ASSIGN AS ERROR ON APPEAL 

THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF ANY FACTUAL FINDING 

OR LEGAL CONCLUSION OF LAW UNDER OHIO CIVIL 

RULE 53(D)(a)(ii), UNLESS THE PARTY TIMELY AND 

SPECIFICALLY OBJECTS TO THAT FACTUAL FINDING 

OR LEGAL CONCLUSION AS REQUIRED BY OHIO CIVIL 

RULE 53(D)(3)(b). 

(Id.). On December 16, 2008, the trial court issued its judgment entry noting 

initially that neither party had filed objections to the magistrate’s decision 

pursuant to Civ.R. 53. (Dec. 16, 2008 JE, Doc. No. 30). Therefore, after an 

independent review of the evidence of the record, the trial court found no apparent 

error of law or defect, and ultimately adopted and approved the magistrate’s 

decision to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint for divorce. (Id.). 

{¶8} As previously stated, under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “a party shall not 

assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal 

conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or 

conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to 

that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” 

{¶9} It is clear from the rules and from prior case law that, in a divorce 

proceeding, 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 issues for the first 

time on appeal. Civ.R. 53; Heath v. Heath (Feb. 29, 2000), 3d Dist. No. 14-99-44, 
Case No. 6-09-01 

6

at *1. See, also, Foust v. Foust (Nov. 14, 2000), 3d Dist. No. 1-2000-28, at *2; 

Waltimire v. Waltimire (1989), 55 Ohio App.3d 275, 564 N.E.2d 119; Harbeiter v. 

Harbeitner (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 485, 641 N.E.2d 206; Wirt v. Wirt (Apr. 10, 

1996), 9th Dist. No. 95CA0041; Walston v. Walston (Sept. 29, 1995), 6th Dist. 

No. WD-94-057; Welch v. Welch (Sept. 19, 1995), 5th Dist. No. 94 CA 50; 

Conroy v. Conroy (Apr. 12, 1993), 10th Dist. No. 93AP-27. Thus, a party waives 

the right to challenge the finding or conclusion on appeal if they fail to object to 

the magistrate’s decision. 

{¶10} Here, it is clear that appellant failed to object to any of the 

conclusions of law or findings of fact indicated in the magistrate’s decision. 

Therefore, appellant is otherwise foreclosed from assigning as error those issues 

she failed to raise with the trial court. 

{¶11} Appellant’s assignments of error are, therefore, overruled. 

{¶12} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Judgment Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI and SHAW, J.J., concur. 

/jlr