[Cite as Matics v. Matics, 2013-Ohio-1871.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MATTHEW MATICS 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

-vsANGIE MATICS, ET AL 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2012-AP-07 0040 

: 2012-AP-07 0043 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Tuscarawas County 

Court of Common Pleas, Domestic 

Relations Division, Case No. 

2011TC010039 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 6, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

JOSEPH TRIPODI PAUL HERVEY 

114 East High Avenue P.O. Box 1014 

New Philadelphia, OH 44663 New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

 

For Cuyahoga County CSEA 

BRIAN GUTKOSKI 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street - 8th Floor 

Cleveland, OH 44113
[Cite as Matics v. Matics, 2013-Ohio-1871.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant Matthew Matics appeals from the June 11, 2012, and July 12, 

2012 judgment entries issued by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, 

Domestic Relations Division. 

Facts & Procedural History 

{¶2} Appellant filed a divorce complaint in January of 2011. Appellant and 

appellee Angela Matics have one child in common. The case proceeded to trial on 

January 24, 2012 on appellant’s complaint for divorce and appellee’s counterclaim for 

the same. During the trial, appellee testified she had custody of two children born 

during appellant’s and appellee’s separation and though she applied for child support 

through the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), she 

receives no child support from either of the fathers of the children. The parties 

stipulated that the two children born during the separation were excluded as biological 

children of appellant. 

{¶3} On April 24, 2012, the magistrate issued a decision and filed the parties’ 

stipulations. The magistrate filed a nunc pro tunc entry on April 25, 2012, correcting two 

issues that were incorrect in the previous entry. In her findings of fact, the magistrate 

found that appellee testified she has custody of the two children born during the 

separation and “receives no child support from either of the fathers.” Appellee filed an 

objection to the magistrate’s decision because the child support worksheet attached to 

the decision did not coordinate with the findings of fact. Appellant did not object to the 

magistrate’s decision. Neither party filed a transcript. The trial court issued a decision 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012-AP-07 0040 & 2012-AP-07 0043 3 

on July 12, 2012, ruling on the objections to the magistrate’s decision, agreeing with 

appellee on the proper calculation of child support, and granting a divorce to the parties. 

{¶4} Subsequent to the magistrate’s decision, appellant issued a subpoena to 

Cuyahoga County CSEA requesting financial records “for two children born to [appellee] 

since 2008 through current date; the information should include the amount of the child 

support, the amount collected by the agency on both cases for the years 2010, 2011, 

and 2012.” On May 10, 2012, Cuyahoga County CSEA filed a motion to quash 

appellant’s subpoena. The trial court granted the motion to quash on June 11, 2012, 

declaring the subpoena a nullity. 

{¶5} Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s entry granting the 

motion to quash on July 9, 2012 in Case No. 2012 AP 07 0040. Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal of the trial court’s July 12, 2012 entry on July 20, 2012 in Case No. 2012 AP 

07 0043. Appellant filed a motion to consolidate the cases on July 20, 2012, which this 

court granted on July 27, 2012. Appellant raises the following assignment of error on 

appeal: 

{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

GRANTING NON-PARTY CUYAHOGA COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

AGENCY’S MOTION TO QUASH.” 

{¶7} We find the granting of the motion to quash to be properly before this 

court. The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 12, 2012, ruling on appellee’s 

objections to the magistrate’s decision, resolving all issues, and granting a divorce to 

the parties. Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the judgment entry on July 20, 2012, 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012-AP-07 0040 & 2012-AP-07 0043 4 

and on July 27, 2012, we consolidated the appeal on the motion to quash with the 

appeal on the final divorce decree. 

{¶8} Pursuant to Civil Rule 26(B)(1), the scope of discovery is broad and 

includes “* * * any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking 

discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party * * *.” Civil Rule 45 allows 

subpoenas to be issued to nonparties. However, a court should grant a motion to 

quash the subpoena if it “(a) fails to allows reasonable time to comply; (b) requires 

disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter and no exception or waiver 

applies; [or] (d) subjects a person to undue burden.” Civ.R.45(C)(3). 

{¶9} Our standard of reviewing a trial court’s decision to quash a subpoena is 

the abuse of discretion standard. State ex rel. The V. Companies v. Marshall, 81 Ohio 

St.3d 467, 692 N.E.2d 198 (1998). The Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly held the 

term abuse of discretion implies the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

When applying the abuse of discretion standard, this court may not substitute our 

judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 

621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). 

{¶10} Appellant argues it is necessary to obtain the information as to whether 

appellee is obtaining child support from other sources in order to comply with the child 

support worksheet. Appellee and Cuyahoga County CSEA argue the trial court properly 

quashed the subpoena because: the records are confidential under state law, the only 

evidence adduced at trial was that appellee received no child support from other 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012-AP-07 0040 & 2012-AP-07 0043 5 

sources, there was no objection to the magistrate’s findings of fact by appellant, 

appellant failed to exhaust discovery efforts by not requesting any information from 

appellee about other child support, and appellant failed to file the subpoena with the trial 

court. 

{¶11} We agree with the arguments propounded by appellee and Cuyahoga 

County CSEA. The record indicates appellant did not subpoena the records until after 

the trial concluded and the subpoena requested the documents be produced on May 

12, 2012, after the deadline passed for the filing of objections to the magistrate’s April 

25, 2012 nunc pro tunc decision. There is no evidence in the record that appellant 

refuted appellee’s trial testimony that she did not receive child support from the fathers 

of her other children. Appellant did not object to the magistrate’s findings of fact 

regarding appellee’s testimony and the lack of child support from other sources. 

Further, a review of the record demonstrates Appellant did not file the subpoena with 

the trial court. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting 

the motion to quash subpoena. 

{¶12} Finally, we note that appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s 

July 12, 2012 judgment entry on July 20, 2012. However, appellant did not include the 

July 12th entry in his assignments of error. Appellant also did not file a transcript of the 

trial before the magistrate upon which the July 12th entry was based, as required by 

App.R. 9(B), and has not complied with App. R. 9(C) if a transcript of the trial was 

unavailable. Therefore, we are required to presume regularity in the record of the 

proceedings below and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 

N.E.2d 384 (1980). 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012-AP-07 0040 & 2012-AP-07 0043 6 

{¶13} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s assignment of error. 

{¶14} The judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Delaney, J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur 

 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

WSG:clw 0416
[Cite as Matics v. Matics, 2013-Ohio-1871.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MATTHEW MATICS : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

ANGIE MATICS, ET AL : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : 

 : CASE NO. 2012-AP-07 0040 

 2012-AP-07 0043 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to 

appellant. 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN