[Cite as W.E. v. C.E., 2019-Ohio-4818.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SCIOTO COUNTY 

W.E., : Case No. 19CA3884 

 Petitioner-Appellant, : 

v. : DECISION AND 

 JUDGMENT ENTRY 

C.E., : 

 

 Respondent-Appellee. : RELEASED 11/18/2019 

______________________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES: 

W.E., Youngstown, Ohio, pro se. 

C.E., Portsmouth, Ohio, pro se. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Hess, J. 

{¶1} W.E. appeals from a judgment of the Scioto County Court of Common 

Pleas denying his R.C. 2903.214 petition for a civil stalking protection order. W.E. 

asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition. R.C. 

2903.214(A)(1) and (B) grant the common pleas court of the county in which the person 

to be protected by the protection order resides jurisdiction over all proceedings under 

the statute. W.E. resided in Mahoning County when he sought the protection order in 

Scioto County. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, the judgment 

entry denying the petition is void, and we vacate it. This decision renders moot W.E.’s 

contention that the trial court violated his due process rights by not allowing him to 

participate in the hearing on the petition. 
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 2 

I. FACTS 

{¶2} On May 10, 2019, W.E. filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order 

against C.E. pursuant to R.C. 2903.214. On the petition, W.E. listed his address as the 

Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. The trial court conducted a 

hearing at which C.E. was present but W.E. was not. On June 20, 2019, the trial court 

issued a judgment entry stating: 

This matter came before the Court for hearing on a Petition for a 

Civil Stalking Protection Order filed May 10, 2019. The Court finds the 

Petitioner [W.E.] is currently incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio 

Correctional Center. The Respondent [C.E.] was present for the hearing. 

From the evidence, this Court finds that [C.E.] was notified of [W.E.’s] 

parole hearing and status by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. [C.E.] 

explained she talked with the representatives of the Parole Authority and 

at their suggestion [C.E.] asked for a cease and desist order. This Court 

finds [C.E.’s] discussions with the representatives of the Ohio Adult Parole 

Authority were in an official proceeding. This Court further finds the 

Petitioner has sent correspondence to other people with threatening 

comments to [C.E.]. 

This Court finds the Petition for Civil Stalking Protection Order is 

not well-taken and is overruled. 

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶3} W.E. assigns the following errors for our review: 

ERROR ONE: TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROCEEDING TO 

JUDGMENT AS IT HAD “NO JURISDICTION”, AND THE JUDGMENT 

MUST BE VACATED AND HELD FOR NAUGHT. 

ERROR TWO: TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS IN FAILING 

TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO PARTAKE IN THE HEARING IN ANY 

FASHION, AND IN ACCEPTING EX PARTE EVIDENCE BY 

RESPONDENT WITHOUT PETITIONER BEING ABLE TO REFUTE IT, 

AMOUNTING TO A VOID JUDGMENT. 
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 3 

III. JURISDICTION 

{¶4} In the first assignment of error, W.E. asserts that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider his petition because he resides in Mahoning County, not Scioto 

County. C.E. asserts that she “does not know how to respond to a stalking allegation 

against her in Scioto County, Ohio, when W.E. has not been in Scioto County since he 

was incarcerated over a decade ago.” 

{¶5} “ ‘ “The existence of the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is a 

question of law that we review de novo.” ’ ” Martindale v. Martindale, 4th Dist. Athens 

No. 14CA30, 2016-Ohio-524, ¶ 27, quoting Barber v. Williamson, 4th Dist. Ross No. 

11CA3265, 2012-Ohio-4925, ¶ 12, quoting Yazdani-Isfehani v. Yazdani-Isfehani, 170 

Ohio App.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-7105, 865 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.). 

{¶6} R.C. 2903.214 governs protection orders for victims of menacing by 

stalking. R.C. 2903.214(B) states: “The court has jurisdiction over all proceedings 

under this section.” R.C. 2903.214(A)(1) defines “court” to mean “the court of common 

pleas of the county in which the person to be protected by the protection order resides.” 

“When a petitioner seeks a civil protection order from a common pleas court in a county 

in which he does not reside, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.” 

Vilk v. Dinardo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103755, 2016-Ohio-5245, ¶ 12 (Cuyahoga

County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over R.C. 2903.214 proceeding 

because petitioner resided in Geauga County). See also Reynolds v. Whitney, 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-1048, 2004-Ohio-1628, ¶ 1, 4-8 (Franklin County Court of 

Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over R.C. 2903.214 proceeding because petitioner 
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 4 

resided in Fairfield County). “A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject-matter 

jurisdiction is void.” In re A.B., 4th Dist. Athens No. 18CA13, 2019-Ohio-90, ¶ 8. 

{¶7} The record reflects that when W.E. sought the protection order in Scioto 

County, he resided in Youngstown, Ohio. We take judicial notice of the fact that 

Youngstown is located in Mahoning County. See Vilk v. Bridge, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

103753, 2016-Ohio-4706, ¶ 1 (taking judicial notice that address on petition for civil 

protection order was located in a particular county). As a result, the Scioto County 

Court of Common Pleas was not “the court of common pleas of the county in which the 

person to be protected by the protection order resides.” R.C. 2903.214(A)(1). The trial 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition, and the judgment denying the 

petition is void. We sustain the first assignment of error and vacate the June 20, 2019 

judgment entry denying the petition. This decision renders moot the second assignment 

of error, so we do not consider it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 

JUDGMENT VACATED. 
Scioto App. No. 19CA3884 5 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS VACATED and that Appellant shall pay the 

costs. 

 The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto 

County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. 

 Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of 

this entry. 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Smith, P.J. & McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. 

 For the Court 

 BY: ________________________________ 

 Michael D. Hess, Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

 Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment 

entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing 

with the clerk.