[Cite as Sowders v. Sowders, 2012-Ohio-4786.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

KIM SOWDERS 

 Petitioner-Appellant 

-vsJAMES SOWDERS 

 Respondent-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2012-CA-17 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Ashland County Court 

of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations 

Division, Case No. 12-DMV-059 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 15, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner-Appellant For Respondent-Appellee 

CARL ANDERSON 

DENISE ZANNI 

Legal Aid of Western Ohio, Inc. (LAWO) 

109 West Water Street 

Sandusky, OH 44870
[Cite as Sowders v. Sowders, 2012-Ohio-4786.]

Gwin, J., 

{¶1} Petitioner Kim Sowders appeals a judgment of the Court of Common 

Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Ashland County, Ohio, which taxed court costs to 

her after she requested dismissal of the civil protection order she had previously 

obtained against respondent-appellee James Sowders. Appellant assigns a single error 

to the trial court:

{¶2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAXING COURT COSTS TO THE 

APPELLANT AFTER GRANTING AN EX PARTE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER AND 

SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE PETITION AND VACATING THE EX PARTE CIVIL 

PROTECTION ORDER PRIOR TO A FULL HEARING BECAUSE THE DISMISSAL FALLS 

WITHIN THE SCOPE OF O.R.C. §3113.31 (J) AND THEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT 

SHOULD NOT TAX COURT COSTS TO THE APPELLANT.”

{¶3} The record indicates the court granted appellant an ex parte civil protection 

order on April 5, 2012. On April 16, 2012, a magistrate called the matter for a full hearing. 

Appellant and appellee both appeared. The magistrate found appellant requested dismissal 

of the petition because the appellee was now currently taking his prescription medications. 

The magistrate dismissed the petition and vacated the ex parte domestic violence civil 

protection order.

{¶4} Upon reviewing the magistrate’s decision, the court found the magistrate had 

inadvertently omitted assigning costs, and ordered the costs taxed to appellant. 

{¶5} Appellant cites us to 42 U.S.C. 3796 (gg)(5), which provides a court cannot 

tax court costs or fees to a petitioner in connection with the filing of a civil protection order. 

In accord with the federal law, Ohio enacted R.C. 3113.31(J). The statute states: 
Ashland County, Case No. 2012-CA-17 3 

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and regardless of 

whether a protection order is issued or a consent agreement is approved 

by a court of another county or a court of another state, no court or unit of 

state or local government shall charge any fee, cost, deposit, or money in 

connection with the filing of a petition pursuant to this section or in 

connection with the filing, issuance, registration, or service of a protection 

order or consent agreement, or for obtaining a certified copy of a 

protection order or consent agreement. 

{¶6} Appellant concedes there is no specific language addressing the dismissal of 

a civil protection order but apparently concedes court costs could be taxed to a petitioner if 

the court finds the petitioner is not a victim of domestic violence or if the matter falls outside 

the purview of the statute.

{¶7} Appellant also calls our attention to Ohio Supreme Court Forms 10.01-K and 

10.01– L. These forms provide only for court costs to be taxed to the respondent or waived.

{¶8} The trial court stated no facts or other explanation for its order taxing the 

costs to appellant, but only found they had been omitted. We conclude the trial court erred. 

{¶9} The assignment of error is sustained.
Ashland County, Case No. 2012-CA-17 4 

{¶10} For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, the judgment of 

the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Ashland County, Ohio, is 

reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law 

and consistent with this opinion.

By Gwin, J., 

Delaney, P.J., and 

Hoffman, J., concur

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

WSG:clw 0925 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 
[Cite as Sowders v. Sowders, 2012-Ohio-4786.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

KIM SOWDERS : 

 : 

 Petitioner-Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JAMES SOWDERS : 

 : 

 : 

 Respondent-Appellee : CASE NO. 2012-CA-17 

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

of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Ashland County, Ohio, is 

reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law 

and consistent with this opinion. Costs to be waived.

 _________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 _________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN