Court Opinion

ID: 9899374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 17:09:53.15507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:21.962439
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Siesel v. Siesel, 2023-Ohio-4137.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        ERIE COUNTY

Christine Siesel                                  Court of Appeals No. E-22-053

        Appellant                                 Trial Court No. 2021 DM 0033

v.

Jacob Siesel                                      DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellee                                  Decided: November 9, 2023

                                              *****

        Jessica A.L. Camargo, for appellant.

        Michael J. O’Shea, for appellee.

                                              *****

        DUHART, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Christine Curtis, appeals from: (1) the November 23, 2022

judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, adopting the magistrate’s decision

of October 26, 2022; and (2) the December 2, 2022 judgment of the Erie County Court of

Common Pleas, denying appellant’s motion to vacate the November 23, 2022 judgment

pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.
                         Statement of the Case and of the Facts

       {¶ 2} Appellant and appellee, Jacob Siesel, filed a pro-se petition for dissolution

with the Erie County Common Pleas Court on April 30, 2021. A hearing on the petition

for dissolution was held on June 22, 2021. At the hearing, both parties asked the trial

court to approve a separation agreement they had executed on June 7, 2021. On June 23,

2021, the trial court signed and filed a judgment entry-decree of dissolution of marriage,

approving the separation agreement.

       {¶ 3} On July 12, 2022, more than a year after the June 23, 2021 judgment entry

decree of dissolution was filed, appellant filed a “Motion for Relief of Judgment/Vacate

Decision pursuant to R.C. 60(B).” On October 26, 2022, a magistrate issued a decision

denying appellant’s motion. On November 12, 2022, appellant filed a motion for

extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s decision on the grounds that she

never received electronic service of the magistrate’s decision. On November 16, 2022,

the trial court granted the motion, giving appellant until November 21, 2022, to file her

objections.

       {¶ 4} With no objections to address, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s

decision on November 23, 2022.

       {¶ 5} On November 26, 2023, appellant filed a Motion for Second Extension of

Time to File Objection to Magistrate’s Decision of October 26, 2022 Instanter/Motion to

Vacate Judge’s Decision of November 23, 2022/Objection to Magistrate’s Decision of

October 26, 2022. In these motions appellate counsel argued that her father’s health

2.
issues -- known to her on November 18, 2022 -- precluded her from timely filing

objections to the magistrate’s decision. Specifically, appellant asserted:

              [O]n or about November 18, 2022, hours before the
              undersigned got on a plane from California, she was informed
              that her Father had a debilitating stroke. The undersigned is
              the caregiver of her Father. Upon arrival, the condition of the
              undersigned’s Father was significant. In the evening of
              November 20, 2022, the undersigned was made aware that
              her Father would need emergency heart surgery in the
              morning. On November 21, 2022, all of the undersigned’s
              hearings were canceled and continued due to the
              undersigned’s Father’s condition worsening and requiring
              emergency heart surgery. Only on or about November 23,
              2022 did the undersigned’s Father become stable and able to
              be transferred to a rehabilitation center. * * * Due to this
              emergency, the undersigned desperately needs a second
              extension of time. Said Objection is being filed instanter.

Appellant then included in the body of the motion her untimely-filed objections to the

magistrate’s decision.

       {¶ 6} On December 2, 2022, the trial court issued an order denying appellant’s

motions. Appellant timely filed an appeal.

                                  Assignments of Error

       {¶ 7} Appellant asserts the following assignments of error on appeal:

              I. The trial court erred when it denied the Motion for Second

              Extension of Time to File Objection to Magistrate’s Decision

              of October 26, 2022 Instanter Filed/Motion to Vacate Judge’s

              Decision of November 23, 2022.

3.
              II. The trial court made an abuse of discretion when it denied

              Appellant’s motion to Vacate Judge’s Decision of December

              2, 2022.

              III. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied

              Appellant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to

              Rule 60(B) from the Judgment Entry of June 23, 2021,

              without holding an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on the

              Judgment Entry of June 23, 2021, and an evidentiary hearing

              would have shown that the decision was incorrect in both law

              and fact, and against the manifest weight of the evidence.

              IV. The trial court abused its discretion because Appellant’s

              Motion for Relief of Judgment and Reply/Supplemental Brief

              was made within a reasonable time.

                                         Analysis

Motion for Second Extension of Time to File Objections to Magistrate’s Decision of
                                October 26, 2022

       {¶ 8} As appellant’s first and second assignments of error involve overlapping

issues, we will consider them together in this analysis.1 We begin by considering the trial

1
  Appellant’s second assignment of error notwithstanding, there is no appeal of a motion
to vacate the trial court’s decision of December 2, 2022 currently before us. There is only
an appeal of the December 2, 2022 decision, which denied appellant’s November 26,
2022 motion to vacate the trial court’s decision of November 23, 2022, which denied
appellant’s July 12, 2022 motion to vacate “the divorce decree.” In light of the arguments
of counsel, we will treat the second assignment of error as a challenge to the trial court’s

4.
court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a second extension of time to file objections to

the magistrate’s October 26, 2022 decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) provides that “[a] party

may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of

the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day

period * * *.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that “a party shall not assign as error on

appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the

party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion.”

       {¶ 9} Appellant filed her motion for a second extension of time pursuant to Civ.R.

6(B) on November 26, 2023, three days after the trial court entered a final judgment

adopting the magistrate’s decision. “While Civ.R. 6(B) permits a court to extend the time

prescribed by the civil rules for performing an act upon a showing of excusable neglect,

that rule ‘contemplates a request for an extension of time to do an act which is made

before the court rules on the matter the act concerns.’” Stamper v. Keatley, 4th Dist.

Lawrence No. 04CA14, 2004-Ohio-5430, 2004-Ohio-5430, ¶ 7, quoting Miller v. Smith,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19958, 2004-Ohio-1310, ¶ 13. (Emphasis in original).

       {¶ 10} Here, by the time the appellant filed her motion for a second extension of

time to file her objections, the trial court had already entered a final judgment entry

adopting the magistrate’s report, effectively terminating the case; thus, it would have

been inappropriate for the trial court to grant an extension of time pursuant to Civ.R.

December 2, 2022 denial of appellant’s motion to vacate the trial court’s decision of
November 23, 2022.

5.
6(B), because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to do so. See Stamper at ¶ 8,

citing Murray v. Goldfinger, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19433, 2003-Ohio-459

(holding that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to grant requested extension where

both the motion for extension of time to file objections and the related objections were

filed after trial court’s judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s report).

               Motion to Vacate Judge’s Decision of November 23, 2022

       {¶ 11} Next, we consider the trial court’s December 2, 2022 denial of appellant’s

motion to vacate the November 23, 2022 judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s

decision of October 26, 2022. Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1), a court may provide relief

from judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” When

determining whether a moving party’s inaction constitutes excusable neglect, a court

must consider all the individual facts and circumstances of a case. Elevation Enterprises

Limited v. Anchor Capitol L.L.C., 2023-Ohio1646, 215 N.E.3d 18, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.).

“[T]he concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition

that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) is a remedial rule to be liberally construed, while bearing in mind

that Civ.R. 60(B) constitutes an attempt to ‘strike a proper balance between the

conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and justice should be

done.’” Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248, 416 N.E.2d 605 (1980), quoting

Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick, 53 Ohio St.2d 9, 12, 371 N.E.2d 214 (1978). An appellate court

reviews a trial court’s denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion using an abuse of discretion

standard. Harris v. Anderson, Warden, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d

6.
43, ¶ 7. An abuse of discretion connotes a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140

(1983).

       {¶ 12} Here, counsel for appellant argues that the situation of her father’s illness

(together with various health issues of her own that were never brought before the trial

court) would cause “[a]ny reasonable person” to “suffer at least some emotional strain.”

Although emotional strain “may support a ground for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)

excusable neglect,” Ohio courts have found no abuse of discretion in the denial of a

motion for relief from judgment when the moving party cannot show “debilitating

emotional or psychological illness such that the person seeking relief alleged an utter

incapacity to act with respect to the litigation.” Poulos v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-020226, 2003-Ohio-2899, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 13} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the Civ.R.

60(B) motion. Although counsel for appellant indicated that any reasonable person would

suffer at least some emotional strain as a result of her father’s illness (together with her

own), she failed to establish that she herself experienced emotional strain so debilitating

as to render her unable to timely file objections -- or even a request for a second

extension -- by November 21, 2022.

       {¶ 14} We note that the trial court had already made a reasonable effort to relax

the deadline for the filing of the objections when it granted appellant the initial extension

7.
of time. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court’s denial of the Civ.R.

60(B) motion was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

         {¶ 15} For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant’s first and second assignments of

error are found not well-taken. Inasmuch as this court’s determination of appellant’s first

and second assignments of error are dispositive of this appeal, appellant’s third and fourth

assignments of error are rendered moot.

                                         Conclusion

         {¶ 16} The judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Appellant is to pay the costs of appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.                                    JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

8.