Court Opinion

ID: 9889626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 20:19:06.408429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.231887
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Mullinix v. Mullinix, 2023-Ohio-3696.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Logan E. Mullinix,                                :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                                   No. 23AP-466
v.                                                :            (C.P.C. No. 17DR-399)

Pamela R. Mullinix,                               :         (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                              DECISION

                                    Rendered on October 10, 2023

                 On brief: Logan E. Mullinix, pro se.

                 On brief: Marc Fagin, for appellant.

                      ON APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
                               EN BANC CONSIDERATION

PER CURIAM.

        {¶ 1} On September 12, 2023, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on
jurisdictional grounds. Accordingly, we granted appellant’s motion to dismiss that same
day, treating the motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss her own appeal.              On
September 12, 2023, appellant moved to reinstate her appeal, arguing that we should not
have treated her motion to dismiss as a motion to voluntarily dismiss, but should have
addressed the jurisdictional issue raised therein. On September 20, 2023, we denied
appellant’s motion to reinstate this appeal, stating “[t]he appellate rules do not provide a
procedure by which an appellant may have their appeal dismissed on a jurisdictional basis
other [than] by allowing the case to proceed to briefing and determination. See Jose v. Jose,
9th Dist. No. C.A. 29633, 2020-Ohio-3953, ¶ 7. When an appellant moves to dismiss their
own appeal, that dismissal is voluntary by definition.” (Emphasis added.)
No. 23AP-466                                                                                2

       {¶ 2} On September 22, 2023, appellant filed an application for reconsideration
and a first supplement thereto challenging this court’s judgment entries dismissing this
appeal and denying her motion to reinstate this appeal. On September 22, 2023, appellant
also filed an application for en banc consideration of our judgment entry denying her
motion to reinstate this appeal. On October 2, 2023, appellant filed a second supplement
to her application for reconsideration and a first supplement to her application for en banc
consideration.
       {¶ 3} In her application for en banc consideration and first supplement thereto,
appellant argues the holding in our September 20, 2023 entry denying her motion to
reinstate this appeal is in conflict with this court’s holding in Miami Univ. v. State Emp.
Relations Bd., 66 Ohio App.3d 251 (10th Dist.1990). In Miami Univ., this court ordered
the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final
appealable order. Following submission of the parties’ pleadings in response to the show
cause order and the filing of a motion to dismiss by the appellee, this court determined it
had jurisdiction and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant argues Miami
Univ. conflicts with our denial of appellant’s motion to reinstate because it demonstrates
that the court has “the authority by means of a ‘show cause’ order to determine its
jurisdiction before the appellate briefs are submitted,” contrary to our judgment in this
case. (Sept. 22, 2023 Application for En Banc Consideration at 3.) Appellant is mistaken.
       {¶ 4} In granting appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal, we did not hold that
this court lacked the authority to determine jurisdiction prior to briefing. Rather, as noted
above, our entry states that “[t]he appellate rules do not provide a procedure by which an
appellant may have their appeal dismissed on a jurisdictional basis other [than] by
allowing the case to proceed to briefing and determination.” (Emphasis sic.)
       {¶ 5} In Miami Univ., the appellant did not file a motion to dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. Rather, the court sua sponte raised the issue of jurisdiction and
ordered the parties to brief the issue. The parties did so, and the appellee filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal, which this court ultimately denied. Given the different procedural
postures and holdings in Miami Univ. and the appeal herein, the three-judge panel that
decided the September 20, 2023 judgment denying appellant’s motion to reinstate
unanimously finds there is no conflict between our entry denying appellant’s motion to
No. 23AP-466                                                                                                    3

reinstate this appeal and this court’s decision in Miami Univ. Accordingly, appellant’s
motion for en banc consideration and first supplement to that application are denied. See
Loc.R. 15.
        {¶ 6} In her application for reconsideration and two supplements thereto,
appellant takes issues with our statement that “the appellate rules do not provide a
procedure by which an appellant may have their appeal dismissed on a jurisdictional basis
other [than] by allowing the case to proceed to briefing and determination.” (Emphasis
sic.) Specifically, appellant argues this court lacked the authority to “convert” her motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction into a motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal.
        {¶ 7} Initially, we take issue with appellant’s characterization of our action. We did
not convert appellant’s motion to dismiss. As our September 2o, 2023 entry indicates,
“when an appellant moves to dismiss their own appeal, that dismissal is voluntary by
definition.”
        {¶ 8} More importantly, we disagree with appellant concerning our authority to
grant appellant’s motion to dismiss without addressing her jurisdictional claim. See Jose
at ¶ 7. It is the appellant’s obligation to determine in the first instance whether there is a
final appealable order. In those rare cases in which the appellant believes the order is not
final, but the law is sufficiently unclear as to make the filing of a protective notice of appeal
necessary, and an opposing party does not move to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, the
appellant must wait to have the jurisdictional issue decided when the case is submitted on
the merits.1 To hold otherwise would open the door to the filing of appeals for the sole
purpose of obtaining advisory opinions on appellate jurisdiction.
        {¶ 9} In short, appellant’s application for reconsideration and two supplements to
that application point to no obvious error or issue that was not considered in the court’s
previous entries, but simply reargue and expand on arguments already considered and
rejected by this court. Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 (10th Dist.1982).
Nonetheless, because it appears that appellant’s counsel did not understand that filing a

1 A jurisdictional ruling may also be obtained prior to briefing where an opposing party files a motion to

dismiss. And, of course, a court may sua sponte dismiss an appeal on jurisdictional grounds at any time. See
In re Harris, 8th Dist. No. 78798, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4342. However, when an appellant (here through
counsel) files a notice of appeal, then in short order, the appellant moves for dismissal of that appeal (prior to
record transmission and any briefing of alleged error), this court is not required to address the appellant’s
reasoning for seeking dismissal and may instead simply grant the motion to dismiss.
No. 23AP-466                                                                                 4

motion to dismiss his client’s own appeal would be granted, irrespective of the grounds set
forth therein, we, in the interest of justice, grant appellant’s motion for reconsideration and
and two supplements to that application and reinstate this appeal. To the extent appellant
wishes to raise the jurisdictional issue, she may do so in her merit brief.
                  Application for en banc consideration and supplement thereto denied;
                     Application for reconsideration and supplements thereto granted;
                                                                   Appeal reinstated.

                BEATTY BLUNT, P.J., BOGGS, and MENTEL, J., concur.