[Cite as Nyamusevya v. Nkurunziza, 2023-Ohio-3263.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Leonard Nyamusevya, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 22AP-713

(C.P.C. No. 09DV-1832)

v. :

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

Consolata Nkurunziza, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on September 14, 2023

On brief: Leonard Nyamusevya, pro se.

On brief: Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, and Kara A. Czanik for 

CitiMortgage, Inc. 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

Division of Domestic Relations 

EDELSTEIN, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Leonard Nyamusevya, appeals from an order of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, denying his 

motions for contempt against non-party-appellee CitiMortgage, Inc. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This appeal is the product of two protracted cases that have grown entangled 

over time. However, the issue on appeal is a narrow question of procedure unaffected by 

much of the prior litigation. Because the history of these proceedings is largely immaterial

to the question before us, we will limit our discussion to the factual background relevant to 

this appeal.
No. 22AP-713 2

{¶ 3} The first of these cases, which eventually resulted in the judgment on appeal,

began when Mr. Nyamusevya filed for divorce in the Franklin County Court of Common 

Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. The divorce decree entered on October 1, 2010

pertained, in part, to the disposition of marital real property. See generally Nyamusevya 

v. Nkurunziza, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-405, 2013-Ohio-1576; Nyamusevya v. Nkurunziza, 

10th Dist. No. 11AP-137, 2011-Ohio-5287; Nyamusevya v. Nkurunziza, 10th Dist. No. 

10AP-857, 2011-Ohio-2614.

{¶ 4} In 2010, in the second relevant case, CitiMortgage, Inc. filed for foreclosure

against residential property owned by Mr. Nyamusevya. After extensive litigation, a decree 

of foreclosure was issued in 2018. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment and decree of 

foreclosure in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-949, 2020-Ohio5024. The confirmation of sale was entered by the trial court in 2022 and was recently 

affirmed on appeal in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-464, 2023-

Ohio-1583. Related federal court, bankruptcy, and mandamus proceedings are only 

tangentially relevant, and recently summarized by this court in State ex rel. Nyamusevya 

v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-327, 2023-Ohio-840, ¶ 7-29.

{¶ 5} These parallel proceedings formally intersected when Mr. Nyamusevya filed 

a motion for contempt against CitiMortgage, Inc. in his divorce case before the common 

pleas court.1 Mr. Nyamusevya alleged that CitiMortgage, Inc. knowingly violated an order 

issued on May 26, 2021 concerning the disposition of residential property in the marital 

estate. (June 23, 2022 Mot. for Contempt.) The order stated, “Defendant [Nkurunziza] 

has surrendered her interest in the real estate and Plaintiff is unaware of her whereabouts.

Plaintiff moves the Court [to] enforce the Agreed Decree, in order to fully effectuate the 

parties’ agreement. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff the property as sole owner, 

removing [t]he requirement for Defendant’s cooperation and signature, and giving Plaintiff 

authority to effectuate the sale.” (May 26, 2021 Order at 2.) Mr. Nyamusevya alleged 

CitiMortgage, Inc. was aware of this order yet chose to proceed with foreclosure. He 

asserted this action constituted contempt of court. (June 23, 2022 Mot. for Contempt.) 

1 Mr. Nyamusevya’s former spouse, Ms. Nkurunziza, did not file her own response to the motion and has 

not participated in this appeal.
No. 22AP-713 3

{¶ 6} The motion was set for a hearing before a court magistrate on August 26, 

2022. On November 1, 2022, the trial court issued an order adopting the magistrate’s 

decision that “incorporates by reference the attached magistrate’s decision and makes same 

the judgment of this Court.” (Nov. 1, 2022 Jgmt. Entry at 1.) The magistrate’s decision 

comprises the next two pages of the order, finding “insufficient evidence has been adduced 

to prove by clear and convincing evidence that CitiMortgage, Inc. is in contempt as alleged 

in the motions.” (Id. at 3.) At the bottom of the third page is the magistrate’s signature.

(Id.) The fourth page of the order is a signature page for the common pleas court judge.

(Id. at 4.) A stamp on the first page of the entry from the Franklin County Clerk of Courts 

indicates the order was served on the parties on November 3, 2022. (Id. at 1.) All four 

pages were electronically time-stamped at the same time: 9:56 A.M. on November 1, 2022.

{¶ 7} After filing his notice of appeal on November 23, 2022, Mr. Nyamusevya filed 

a motion in the trial court titled “Motion to Preserve the Issue for a Direct Appeal.”

(Nov. 29, 2022 Mot. at 1.) Mr. Nyamusevya filed a copy of the transcript from the 

August 26, 2022 hearing with the trial court on December 2, 2022. On January 3, 2023, 

Mr. Nyamusevya filed an affidavit with the trial court in support of his November 29, 2022 

motion asserting he was not served with a copy of the magistrate’s decision by the clerk of 

courts, nor did the clerk’s office receive a filed copy of the magistrate decision in order to 

accomplish service. (Nyamusevya Aff. at ¶ 2.) 

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 8} Mr. Nyamusevya assigns the following assignments of error for our review:

[I.] The failure of the lower trial Court in this instant Case to 

perform its ultimate function in compliance with In Yantek v. 

Coach Builders Ltd., Inc., 2007-Ohio-5126, to review the 

Magistrate’s action in accordance with the civil rules, rendered 

the November 01, 2022 lower trial Court’s Judgment Entry 

prejudicial and erroneous and reversible on appeal. 

[II.] The November 01, 2022 lower trial Court’s Judgment 

Entry lacks a Magistrate Decision with two distinctly and 

specifically journalized stamped times by the Clerk of Court, in 

a violation of Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii), which was never filed with 

the Clerk of Court, and which was never served by the Clerk of 

Court on all parties as required under Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii). 
No. 22AP-713 4

III. Discussion

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Nyamusevya alleges the trial court failed 

to perform its obligation under Civ.R. 53 to review the magistrate’s decision prior to its 

adoption. He derives this belief from the contemporaneous filing of the magistrate’s 

decision with the trial court’s judgment entry. (Appellant’s Brief at 8.) 

{¶ 10} Civ.R. 53 governs the conduct and authority concerning matters referred to 

court magistrates by a trial court, including hearings on motions. After conducting a 

hearing, a magistrate shall issue a decision “in writing, identified as a magistrate’s decision 

in the caption, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the clerk on all 

parties or their attorneys no later than three days after the decision is filed.”

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii). The decision must include a notice that a party may not assign as 

an error on appeal any factual finding or legal conclusion which was not timely objected to 

during the prescribed time limits. Id. A party who fails to object waives the right to assign 

as error on appeal anything but plain error. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). 

{¶ 11} “Civ.R. 53(D) places upon the reviewing court the ultimate authority and 

responsibility over an appointed magistrate’s findings and rulings.” Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency v. Lowry, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1184, 2011-Ohio-6820, ¶ 11. Any time 

after a magistrate’s decision is filed, the trial court may, in whole or in part, adopt, reject, 

or modify the magistrate’s decision during its review. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b). The trial court is 

permitted to enter judgment on the magistrate’s decision at any time after it is issued, but 

remains obligated to rule on any objections filed before the 14-day filing deadline, whether 

or not the court has already entered judgment. The court may vacate, modify, or affirm its 

initial judgment while disposing of such timely filed objections. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e). If 

objections are filed, the court must conduct an independent review of the factual findings 

and legal conclusions made by the magistrate. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). If no objections are filed, 

a trial court may adopt the decision after ascertaining there is no error of law or other defect 

obvious from the face of the decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c). 

{¶ 12} Therefore, unlike its obligation to conduct an independent review of the 

decision when a party files objections, the trial court is only required to review a 

magistrate’s decision for errors of law evident on the face of the decision if no party objects. 
No. 22AP-713 5

See 2006 Staff Note, Civ.R. 53 (“The language of Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c) has been modified in 

an attempt to make clear that the obligation of the court does not extend to any ‘error of 

law’ whatever but is limited to errors of law that are evident on the face of the decision.”).

{¶ 13} In support of his contention that the trial court failed to perform its duties 

under Civ.R. 53, Mr. Nyamusevya points to Yantek v. Coach Builders Ltd., 1st Dist. No. C060601, 2007-Ohio-5126, ¶ 11 for the proposition that “[a]n essential component of a trial 

court’s judicial function is to review and to ratify a magistrate’s decision before it becomes 

effective.” In Yantek, the First District held that a trial court must take action on a 

magistrate’s decision before it becomes effective. Id. at ¶ 11-12. This decision does not 

prohibit the practice of simultaneously filing a magistrate’s decision and trial court decision 

adopting it, but instead reaffirms that a magistrate’s decision does not take effect until its 

express adoption by the trial court. Here, the decision by the court magistrate was expressly

adopted by the trial court and thus is consistent with both Civ.R. 53 and Yantek.

{¶ 14} Because Mr. Nyamusevya did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, 

the trial court expressly found there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face 

of the decision and adopted it in its entirety. (Nov. 1, 2022 Jgmt. Entry at 1.) The trial court

further stated it incorporated the decision and “makes same the judgment of this Court.”

(Id.) Other than assert the trial court could not have fulfilled its review obligation due to 

the simultaneous filing of the two orders, Mr. Nyamusevya does not indicate how the trial 

court failed to act on the magistrate’s decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 53. The 

trial court’s action—here, adopting the magistrate’s finding and entering judgment—is 

permitted under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b). “A trial court may adopt a magistrate’s decision and 

enter judgment either before or after the 14-day period for filing objections expires. If the 

court adopts the decision before the period expires, however, the parties still have the right 

to file objections.” (Internal citation omitted.) Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC v. Litter, 10th 

Dist. No. 09AP-563, 2010-Ohio-3325, ¶ 9. See also Bahgat v. Kissling, 10th Dist. No. 17AP641, 2018-Ohio-2317, ¶ 18 (“Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), a party may file written objections 

to a magistrate’s decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the 

court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period.”).

{¶ 15} No evidence in the record supports Mr. Nyamusevya’s assertion that the trial 

court failed to conduct a facial review before adopting the magistrate’s decision. While 
No. 22AP-713 6

simultaneous filing could be a sign of such a failure if coupled with an error evident from 

the face of the decision, see, e.g., Abdulshafi v. Abdulshafi, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-487, 2020-

Ohio-2692, ¶ 15, it is insufficient to support such a conclusion on its own. Absent evidence 

to the contrary, a trial court’s statement that it conducted the appropriate review of a 

magistrate’s decision, even when both decisions are filed with the clerk’s office 

simultaneously, is sufficient. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Sardella, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-276, 

2011-Ohio-6458, ¶ 23. See also Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3, 7 (1993) (“An appellate 

court reviewing a lower court’s judgment indulges in a presumption of regularity of the 

proceedings below.”). Neither is there any indication that Mr. Nyamusevya was prohibited 

from filing objections after its adoption. See Sardella at ¶ 22. 

{¶ 16} Failing to demonstrate any error, Mr. Nyamusevya’s first assignment of error 

is overruled.

B. Second Assignment of Error

{¶ 17} Mr. Nyamusevya’s second assignment of error alleges the magistrate’s 

decision was not independently filed with the clerk of courts and thus not properly served 

on the parties, in violation of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii). 

{¶ 18} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) sets forth explicit requirements for a magistrate’s 

decision. It states the “decision shall be in writing, identified as a magistrate’s decision in 

the caption, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk, and served by the clerk on all 

parties or their attorneys no later than three days after the decision is filed.” It further 

requires that the decision “indicate conspicuously” the possibility of forfeiture on appeal if 

a party fails to file timely objections. Id.

{¶ 19} The magistrate’s decision below is undisputedly in writing and signed by the 

magistrate. The stamp on the first page of the trial court’s judgment entry indicates it was 

served on the parties on November 3, 2022, within the proscribed time limits. The core of 

Mr. Nyamusevya’s second assignment of error turns on the simultaneous filing of the 

magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s judgment entry adopting it at 9:56 A.M. on 

November 1, 2022. He asserts that simultaneous filing renders it a single filing, which he 

claims is not compliant with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii)’s requirement that “a magistrate’s 

decision” be “filed with the clerk.”
No. 22AP-713 7

{¶ 20} The first page of the trial court’s entry states, “The magistrate has filed a 

decision in this matter with the Clerk of Courts on see time stamp, and copies thereof 

were mailed to the parties and/or their attorneys of record.” (Emphasis sic and added.)

(Nov. 1, 2022 Jgmt. Entry at 1.) Later in the same paragraph, the entry continues, “The 

Court further finds there is no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s 

decision. The Court incorporates by reference the attached magistrate’s decision and 

makes same the judgment of this Court.” (Id.) The court’s language implies a magistrate’s 

decision was already filed and mailed by the clerk of courts prior to the issuance of the 

judgment entry. Generously, the order may be described as sparse. The only analysis 

contained in the order is that it found no error of law or other obvious defect. The trial 

court’s entry does not mention the continuing opportunity to file objections or request 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it does not indicate that the filing of objections 

would operate as an automatic stay of the judgment under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). 

Surprisingly, such language in the trial court’s decision is not required by statute, although 

it would certainly provide clarity rather than the confusion that evidently resulted from the 

proceedings below. See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-664, 2018-Ohio-3180.

{¶ 21} Instead, minimal notice is provided in the final paragraph of the magistrate’s 

decision. The language of the notice complies, in a technical sense, with Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(a)(iii)’s requirement to “indicate conspicuously” the consequences caused by 

waiving objections. The notice does not state the time limits for filing and does not indicate 

a party may file objections within the 14-day window, even after the trial court has issued a 

judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision. Rather, it merely references the section 

of the Civil Rules that sets forth when and how objections may be filed. Although the notice 

is vague and fairly ambiguous, we have repeatedly found the use of identical language 

satisfies this requirement. See, e.g., Davis at ¶ 6; Middleton v. Erie Ins., 10th Dist. No. 

21AP-15, 2022-Ohio-2486, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 22} And while former Civ.R. 54(A) prohibited incorporating a magistrate’s 

decision into a trial court judgment entry, amendments to the Rule effective July 1, 2019 

removed that constraint. See 2019 Staff Note to Civ.R. 54. Our court has accepted this 

practice, because entering the trial court’s judgment simultaneously with the filing of a 

magistrate’s decision does not preclude a party from filing objections. See, e.g., Davis v. 
No. 22AP-713 8

Gray, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-746, 2003-Ohio-1655, ¶ 10; In re Malone, 10th Dist. No. 03AP489, 2003-Ohio-7156, ¶ 32; In re J.B., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-242, 2007-Ohio-6088, ¶ 4; 

Blevins v. Blevins, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-175, 2014-Ohio-3933, ¶ 17.

{¶ 23} Although we have routinely accepted this practice, we also take this 

opportunity to express our concern with the practical implications of filing and serving a 

trial court judgment entry and magistrate’s decision together at the same time. “It is more 

than conceivable that an unrepresented litigant could view the simultaneous adoption of a 

magistrate’s decision by the trial court, or one adopted so quickly before the 14-day 

objection period expires, to have cut off that right of objection no matter how bold the 

language is in the magistrate’s decision about the filing of objections to it.” In re D.F., III, 

10th Dist. No. 18AP-811, 2019-Ohio-3710, ¶ 25 (J. Brunner, dissenting). Although lawful,

this practice creates unnecessary and easily averted confusion, as evidenced by the instant 

appeal. And we are reluctant to condone it. “[T]he main purpose for the procedures set 

forth in Civ.R. 53 is to afford litigants with a meaningful opportunity to file objections to a 

magistrate’s decision.” Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC at ¶ 6. Combined entries cause 

needless ambiguity as to whether a party is still permitted to file objections after a trial court 

adopts the magistrate’s decision. And only citing the Civil Rule subsection setting forth

time limits for filing objections does little to clarify that ambiguity. 

{¶ 24} Despite the confusion surrounding the simultaneous filings that occurred 

below, the issuance of the magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s judgment entry were

in accordance with law. Mr. Nyamusevya’s mistaken belief that the lack of a separately filed 

magistrate’s decision precluded him from filing objections does not constitute error. See 

id. at ¶ 10. Therefore, we must overrule Mr. Nyamusevya’s second assignment of error. 

IV. Disposition

{¶ 25} Having overruled Mr. Nyamusevya’s two assignments of error, the judgment 

of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MENTEL and BOGGS, JJ., concur.