Court Opinion

ID: 9397601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 17:13:47.251507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.136921
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Haugh v. Zacher, 2023-Ohio-1761.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                 TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Robert Kevin Haugh, Jr.,                           :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,                :
                                                               No. 22AP-755
v.                                                 :      (C.P.C. No. 20JU-1887)

Heidi Lynn Zacher,                                 :    (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                Defendant-Appellant.               :

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on May 25, 2023

                On brief: Weis Law Group LLC, and David R. Plumb, for
                appellant. Argued: David R. Plumb.

                 APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
                     Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch

LELAND, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Heidi Lynn Zacher, appeals from a judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing her objections to a magistrate’s
decision denying her motion to dismiss the motion for grandparent visitation filed by
maternal grandmother Susan Grimm, and granting attorney fees to Grimm in the amount
of $500. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellee, Robert Kevin Haugh, Jr., filed a complaint on February 11,
2020 seeking sole legal custody of his child or, in the alternative, the allocation of parenting
time between Haugh and appellant.                On May 9, 2022, Grimm filed a motion for
grandparent visitation to secure companionship or visitation rights with her grandchild.
Appellant opposed this motion and on June 14, 2022 filed a motion to dismiss Grimm’s
motion for grandparent visitation.
No. 22AP-755                                                                                2

       {¶ 3} On October 5, 2022, the magistrate filed a written decision denying
appellant’s motion to dismiss and granting Grimm $500 in attorney fees. That same day,
the trial court attached a judgment entry approving, adopting, and entering on the record
the magistrate’s written decision. On October 12, 2022, appellant filed objections to the
magistrate’s decision, to which Grimm filed a memorandum contra. On November 3, 2022,
appellant filed with the trial court the transcript from the magistrate hearing on Grimm’s
motion for grandparent visitation. On November 10, 2022, the trial court dismissed
appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, claiming the magistrate had not yet filed
a decision and therefore the objections were premature and not yet ripe. Appellant filed a
motion to reconsider on November 17, 2022 emphasizing the objections were filed in
response to the magistrate’s written decision adopted by the trial court on October 5, 2022.
       {¶ 4} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
II. Assignment of Error
       {¶ 5} Appellant presents the following assignment of error for our review:
               The trial court erred in dismissing Defendant-Appellant’s
               objections to the Magistrate’s written decision on the grounds
               that the Magistrate had not issued a written decision.

III. Analysis
       {¶ 6}    Appellant’s sole assignment of error contends the trial court erred by
dismissing her objections on the incorrect basis that the magistrate had not yet filed a
written decision.
       {¶ 7} “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)(b)(i). “If one or more objections to a magistrate’s
decision are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
       {¶ 8} In the present case, the magistrate filed a written decision on October 5,
2022, and the trial court simultaneously filed a judgment entry adopting that decision.
Appellant filed objections on October 12, 2022. Appellant’s filing was timely, occurring
within the 14-day period permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), and as a result, the trial court
was required to rule on the objections. Although generally “an appellate court may not
address an appeal of a trial court’s judgment when the trial court has failed to rule on
properly filed objections,” appellant alleged an error more fundamental than a failure to
No. 22AP-755                                                                               3

rule on the objections. Drummond v. Drummond, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-700, 2003-Ohio-
587, ¶ 13, citing McCown v. McCown, 145 Ohio App.3d 170, 172 (12th Dist.2001). The trial
court in the present case erred in overlooking its own judgment entry from October 5, 2022
in which it explicitly adopted the magistrate’s written decision. Relying on this mistaken
determination that no magistrate’s decision had yet been filed, the trial court further erred
in dismissing appellant’s objections as premature and not yet ripe. Accordingly, we sustain
appellant’s sole assignment of error.
IV. Conclusion
       {¶ 9} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s
objections as premature. Having sustained appellant’s sole assignment of error, we reverse
the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations, Juvenile Branch, and remand the matter to that court for further proceedings in
accordance with law and consistent with this decision.
                                                                       Judgment reversed;
                                                                          cause remanded.

                    LUPER SCHUSTER and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.