[Cite as White v. Ferrell , 2020-Ohio-970.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

VIRGINIA M. WHITE, Appellee,

- vs -

DIANE L. FERRELL, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2018-06-016

O P I N I O N

3/16/2020

APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. DRH20180079

Parks and Meade, LLC, Darren L. Meade, 2602 Oakstone Drive, Col umbus, Ohio 43231, for appellant

S. POWELL, J. {¶ 1} Diane Ferrell appeals the decision of the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, which granted a domestic violence civil protection order against her and in favor of petitioner Virginia White. For the reasons outlined below, thi s court dismisses the appeal. {¶ 2} White petitioned the court for a domestic violence civil protec tion order ("DVCPO"), alleging that Ferrell had threatened her and hit her . Ferrell filed her own petitionMadison CA2018-06-016

- 2 - for a DVCPO against White. The court set both petitions for th e same hearing. {¶ 3} At the hearing – before a magistrate – the court heard testimon y from White and Ferrell. White reiterated her allegations against Ferrell. Ferrell testified and argued in defense of White's claims. As part of her argument, Ferrell re ferenced various documents she claimed could disprove White's allegations. {¶ 4} At the conclusion of the hearing, the court indicated it would issue written decisions. Ferrell then asked the court "do you need any of th e evidence that I have to prove to you?" The magistrate responded, "[w]e're done." Ferr ell reiterated, "[s]o I don't need to prove to you what the evidence of the e-mails and stuff like that?" [ Sic .] The court did not respond. {¶ 5} The next day, the court issued a DVCPO in favor of White and ag ainst Ferrell. The order was signed by both the magistrate and the judge. Par agraph 21 of the DVCPO contains the following language:

IF THE FULL HEARING PROC EEDING WAS REFERRED TO A MAGISTRATE, the Court has reviewed the magistrate's granting of this Order and finds no error of law or other defec t evident on the face of the Order. Accordingly, the Court adopt s the magistrate's granting of the Order. {¶ 6} Fourteen days later, Ferrell filed a letter with the court, whi ch letter purported to "appeal" the protective order. The letter reiterated some o f the statements Ferrell made at the hearing and specifically denied the allegation of a phys ical assault. Ferrell also attached various documents that were potentially referenced, bu t not admitted, at the hearing, including the notarized letter, e-mails, and medical r ecords. On the same day of the filing of the "appeal" letter, Ferrell filed a notice of ap peal. Ferrell presents two assignments of error for this court's review. {¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED APPELLANT-RESPONDENT OF HERMadison CA2018-06-016

- 3 - RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR AND FULL HEARING WHEN I TDENIED RESPONDENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, CROSSEXAMINE THE PETITIONER, FAILED TO ADVISE HER OF THE ABILITY TO REQUEST A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE, AND BY PREVENTING PETITIONER FROM

RESTATING TESTIMONIAL STATEMEN TS IN A MANNER AUDIBLE TO ALL PAR TIES. {¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CIVIL

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER 3113.31 WHEN A HOUSEHOLD RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIE NT EVIDENCE, AS THERE LACKED EVIDENCE OF EITHER INTERMINGLING OF

FINANCES AND HOUSEHOLD RESPON SIBILITIES, OR OF CONSORTIUM. {¶ 11} This court concludes that it is unable to review the trial cour t's adoption of the magistrate's grant of the protection order because Ferrell file d her appeal before the trial court could respond to her appeal letter, which this court cons trues as a timely-filed objection. Pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1, a magistrate is empowered to conduct the full hearing on a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order an d deny or grant the order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(a). The magistrate's order is not effective until it is adopted by the court. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(i). The court may adopt the order upon a determination that "there is

no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the orde r." Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). {¶ 12} Within 14 days of the court's filing of the order, a party may file written objections to "a court's adoption * * * of a magistrate's denia l or granting of a protection order * * *." Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). Objections based upon evidence of record, such as those Ferrell set forth in her appeal letter, must be supported by a transcript of all evidence submitted to the magistrate. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). Prior to filing an appeal, a party must timely file objections to a court's adoption of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protectionMadison CA2018-06-016

- 4 - order. Civ.R. 65.1(G). The filing of the objections stays the running of the time for filing the appeal until the court has ruled on the objections. Id

. {¶ 13} A trial court therefore has a mandatory duty to rule on a party 's timely-filed objections to the court's adoption of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order. In the similar context of a magistrate's decision issued pursua nt to Civ.R. 53, this court has held "[i]t is well-established that an appellate court may not address an appeal of a trial court's judgment when the trial court has failed to rule on pro perly filed objections." Ludwick

v. Ludwick , 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2002-08-017, 2003-Ohio-2925, ¶ 5. A ccordingly, because Ferrell noticed her appeal before the trial court had t he opportunity to rule on her objections, no final order exists for this court to review. Co nsequently, this court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. {¶ 14} Appeal dismissed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.