Court Opinion

ID: 9366379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:07:50.232684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.799082
License: Public Domain

[Cite as A.A. v. Z.A., 2023-Ohio-217.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

A.A.,                                            :

                 Petitioner-Appellee,            :
                                                          No. 111529
                 v.                              :

Z.A.,                                            :

                 Respondent-Appellant.           :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 26, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CV-22-959077

                                         Appearances:

                 Eric L. Foster, for appellee.

                 Kenneth R. Hurley, for appellant.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                   Respondent-appellant, Z.A., appeals the trial court’s judgment

granting a civil stalking protection order (“CSPO”) to petitioner-appellee, A.A. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.
              On February 2, 2022, A.A. filed a petition for a CSPO against Z.A. The

petition alleged that Z.A. is known to carry a gun and he threatened to kill A.A. and

his wife, S.W. The petition further alleges that Z.A. came to their house, damaged

their property, and shot at their car. The same day, the administrative judge

assigned the matter to a magistrate. The magistrate held an ex parte hearing on

A.A.’s petition, issued a temporary protection order protecting A.A. and S.W., and

scheduled a full hearing. Personal service upon Z.A. through the Cuyahoga County

Sheriff’s Department was requested. On February 10, 2022, the docket indicates

that failure of service upon Z.A. was noted by the Sheriff’s office. Service was then

attempted through certified mail upon Z.A., which also was returned “attempted not

known.” The full hearing was continued until March 23, 2022, for lack of service.

              At the beginning of the full hearing, the trial court addressed the

failure of service at Z.A.’s former address. Z.A., who was pro se, waived any defect

in service. The court had the following exchange with Z.A.:

      Court: You [Z.A.] have the right under Ohio law to request a
      continuance because you haven’t been officially served. You also have
      the option of moving forward today and just telling your side of the
      story. I’ll just hear both sides of the story for both parties.

      Respondent: I want to continue, Your Honor.

      Court: So for the record, you’re waiving service and you want to
      continue today?

      Respondent: Yes, Your Honor.

(CSPO hearing, Mar. 23, 2022, tr. 6.)
               As a result, the court proceeded with hearing testimony from A.A.,

S.W., and Z.A. A.A. testified that he had caught Z.A. and A.A.’s ex-wife, N.S.,

together while A.A. and N.S. were still married. A.A. subsequently remarried S.W.

A.A. produced a video recorded by S.W. on June 29, 2021, depicting Z.A. and N.S.

searching for A.A.’s parked car and covering it with black paint. The video was

played to the court.

               During the video, A.A. identified Z.A. and N.S. A.A. also testified that

he learned from a mutual acquaintance that Z.A. and N.S. shot at A.A.’s car while he

drove past them on St. Clair Avenue. A.A. added that he had been driving a rental

car at the time and N.S. was the only one who knew he was driving the rental car.

A.A. produced photographs showing a shattered driver’s side window, bullet holes

in the car, and spent shell casings on the street.

               A.A. also testified that Z.A. sent him a threatening letter, had

threatened him personally, chased him in his car on East 55th Street, and threatened

him with a gun. A.A. produced photographs showing bruising on his face and arms

and testified that he sustained this bruising when Z.A. and another man attacked

him as he left his house at 5:00 a.m. one morning in late 2019.

               In addition, A.A. produced a flyer containing a photograph of A.A.

and insulting remarks written in Arabic across the top of it. A.A. testified that these

flyers were posted outside his mosque and other public places and that people who

attended the mosque had identified Z.A. as the person who posted them. Finally,

A.A. produced cellphone records indicating incoming calls from Z.A. between mid-
August and mid-September 2021. A.A. testified that in these phone calls, Z.A. had

threatened A.A. to try to get him to drop another CSPO petition that A.A. had filed

against N.S.

               S.W. testified next. S.W. testified that Z.A. and N.S. had damaged

A.A.’s car on June 29, 2021, and had told her in November 2020, that if she did not

divorce A.A., they would “destroy [A.A.’s] life.” S.W. stated that these incidents have

been ongoing since 2018.

               Z.A. testified that he first met A.A. in 2019, while they were working

at the same gas station and they became acquainted when A.A. asked Z.A. to take

N.S. to his house or a parking lot so that A.A. could photograph them together to

obtain a divorce. Z.A. also testified that he had learned from a mutual acquaintance

that A.A. had another person punch him in the eye to make it look like he was

attacked. Z.A. further testified that A.A. paid him $400 to do “black magic” on N.S.

Z.A. testified that A.A. quit his job to avoid paying child support and that Z.A. gave

the $400 to N.S. Z.A. denied all of A.A.’s allegations, claiming that they are

retaliation for Z.A.’s testimony in a domestic violence case filed by A.A. against N.S.

in January 2022.

               After the hearing, the magistrate found A.A. and S.W.’s testimony

more credible than Z.A.’s and on April 18, 2022, granted the CSPO, naming A.A. and

S.W. as protected persons. The CSPO is to be effective until February 2, 2027. The

trial court adopted the CSPO and signed and filed it with clerk of courts the following

day. No objections were filed to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s
decision.   Instead, Z.A. filed the instant appeal, raising the following two

assignments of error for review:

      Assignment of Error I: The trial court abused its discretion in
      finding that [Z.A.] violated R.C. 2903.211.

      Assignment of Error II: The trial court failed to properly advise
      [Z.A.] of the significance of his waiver of service, waiver of counsel[,]
      and the nature of the proceedings.

               As an initial matter, we must determine whether Z.A.’s appeal is

properly before this court.

               The rules governing CSPO petitions are set forth in Civ.R. 65.1. Under

Civ.R. 65.1(F), a CSPO petition may be referred a magistrate. The magistrate’s

granting or denial of the CSPO is subject to approval, modification, or rejection by

the trial court and becomes effective when signed by the court and filed with the

clerk. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c). A party may file written objections to the trial court’s

adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate’s granting or denial of the

CSPO within 14 days of the court’s filing of the order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). An

order entered by the court under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c) is a final, appealable order, but

written objections to this order must be timely filed under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d) prior

to filing an appeal. Civ.R. 65.1(G).

               Pursuant to the July 1, 2016 amendment to Civ.R. 65.1, “a party must

timely file objections to such an order under (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an

appeal, and the timely filing of such objections shall stay the running of the time for

appeal until the filing of the court’s ruling on the objections.” (Emphasis added.)

Civ.R.65.1(G). The July 2016 amendment to Civ.R. 65.1 specifically requires “that a
party must file objections prior to filing an appeal from the trial court’s otherwise

appealable adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate’s ruling.” Civ.R. 65.1,

Division (G) notes. As the staff note explains: “[t]his amendment is grounded on

two key principles. First, it promotes the fair administration of justice, including

affording the trial court an opportunity to review the transcript and address any

insufficiency of evidence or abuse of discretion that would render the order or a term

of the order unjust. Second, it creates a more robust record upon which the appeal

may proceed.” Civ.R. 65.1, Division (G) notes.

               In the instant case, Z.A. did not file any objections to the trial court’s

adoption of the magistrate’s decision granting the CSPO prior to filing this appeal.

Without timely filed objections pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G), Z.A. waived any

argument challenging the trial court’s decision to adopt the CSPO on appeal.

Therefore, we decline to address the merits, and we overrule the first and second

assignments of error.

               Judgment is affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were not reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCURS;
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY