Court Opinion

ID: 9385289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 15:07:14.601539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.388985
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Gilmore v. Guess, 2023-Ohio-1145.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

LUCIANA GILMORE,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :
                                                             No. 111902
                v.                                  :

CARL O. GUESS,                                      :

                Defendant-Appellant.                :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 6, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Domestic Relations Division
                                Case No. DR-21-387645

                                              Appearances:

                Luciana Gilmore, pro se.

                Carl O. Guess, pro se.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

                  Defendant-appellant Carl O. Guess (“Guess”) appeals the trial court’s

August 4, 2022 judgment entry. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History

               On November 4, 2021, in Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-21-387645, Luciana

Gilmore (“Gilmore”) filed a complaint for divorce, pro se, against Guess arguing the

parties were incompatible.      According to the complaint, the parties had been

married for less than one year; had no debt; and did not acquire any personal

property during the marriage. On February 1, 2022, Guess filed a pro se answer to

the divorce complaint.

               The trial court’s docket indicates telephonic and in-person pretrial

hearings with the magistrate were set on February 24, 2022, March 14, 2022, May

9, 2022, and June 9, 2022.1 On August 4, 2022, the magistrate conducted trial

where Gilmore participated, and Guess failed to appear. On the same date, the

magistrate issued a decision.

               In the magistrate’s decision, the court made numerous findings of fact

and conclusions of law including that while neither party owned nor held a leasehold

interest in any real property, Gilmore’s business owned real property located on

Oxford Court in Bedford Heights, Ohio (“real property”).          Gilmore’s business

purchased the real property in June 2021, prior to the marriage. Gilmore testified

that Guess loaned her business $37,471 for the purchase of the real property.

Gilmore presented evidence of a wire transfer sent from Guess to Gilmore’s business

bank account in the amount of $37,471. Gilmore further testified it was the parties’

      1While the docket indicates pretrial hearings were set, the docket does not state
whether the hearings were held and, if so, what transpired during the hearings.
intention that Gilmore would repay Guess the amount of $37,471 upon her

business’s sale of the real property.

               The magistrate determined the only separate property of Guess was

the $37,471 owed by Gilmore upon the sale of the real property, and Gilmore

volunteered to repay that amount to Guess. The magistrate also found there was no

marital property subject to division, and “[t]he parties have divided all personal

property and debts to their mutual satisfaction.” Magistrate’s Aug. 4, 2022 decision

at p. 7. The last paragraph of the magistrate’s decision reads:

      A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any
      finding of fact or conclusion of law in this magistrate’s decision unless
      the party timely and specifically objects to the finding or conclusion as
      required by Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b).

Magistrate’s Aug. 4, 2022 decision at p. 8. Neither party filed objections to the

magistrate’s decision.

               On August 30, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry that

adopted the magistrate’s August 4, 2022 decision in its entirety and granted Gilmore

a divorce. The judgment entry ordered Gilmore to pay Guess $37,471 within 30 days

of the journalization of the divorce decree. The judgment entry also stated, in

relevant part, that the parties divided all personal property and debts to their mutual

satisfaction, and the order reflected an equal and equitable division of property.

               On September 2, 2022, Guess filed a timely notice of appeal

presenting verbatim this sole assignment of error:

      Assignment of error: The trial court erred in the final accounting and
      documentation of the divorce decree, real property section, by not
      including the full understanding of the agreed upon repayment/real
      property return to Appellant.

Legal Analysis

              Guess seeks an award of (1) $10,000 for monies he allegedly loaned

to Gilmore’s business for the purchase of the real property and that she did not repay

to him, (2) an 82-inch television, (3) a poker table, and (4) a wedding ring. Guess

contends that he provided Gilmore $44,000 — rather than $37,471 — to purchase

the real property in Bedford, Ohio. In support of Guess’s argument that he should

have been awarded the above-mentioned money and property, Guess references

R.C. 3105.171(C)(1), which addresses the division of marital property. As a result,

we presume Guess’s argument is that the trial court erred in its division of marital

property.

              According to Guess, he and Gilmore met with the court magistrate in

March 2022, and Guess failed to appear at the next scheduled meeting because he

was ill with Covid-19. Guess further avers that he subsequently received the divorce

decree by mail.

              Gilmore contends that the real property was purchased prior to the

marriage and, therefore, did not constitute marital property pursuant to R.C.

3105.171. However, Gilmore concedes that Guess provided her $38,1752 for the

purchase of the real property and that she and Guess agreed the money would be

      2 The magistrate’s August 4, 2022 decision and the trial court’s August 30, 2022
judgment entry both indicate the dollar amount to be repaid by Gilmore to Guess was
$37,471.
repaid to Guess. Gilmore argues she repaid the borrowed money; the couple did not

acquire any marital property during their marriage; and the trial court’s judgment

entry should be upheld.

               Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error,

a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding

or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or

conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that

finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”              “The burden of

demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” State v. Quarterman, 140

Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16, citing State v. Payne, 114

Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 17.

               A review of the record shows that neither party objected to the

magistrate’s decision. Therefore, this court cannot review an appeal from the

magistrate’s August 4, 2022 decision and the trial court’s adoption of that decision

except for plain error. However, Guess also failed to invoke the plain-error doctrine

on his appeal of this issue. Where an appellant fails to object to a trial court’s finding

or conclusion under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) and fails to make a showing to the

appeals court that plain error occurred, the reviewing court need not address the

matters raised on appeal. Kobal v. Edward Jones Secs., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

109753, 2021-Ohio-1088, ¶ 41; See Quarterman at ¶ 17-20 (an appellate court need

not consider plain error where appellant fails to timely raise plain-error claim);

State v. Sims, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-1025, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (appellant
cannot meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal when she preserved only

plain error and did not argue plain error on appeal); In re A.R., 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2015-08-143, 2016-Ohio-4919, ¶ 33 (appellant is precluded from raising plain

error on appeal where he does not argue it in his brief); Wright v. Dir. Ohio Dept. of

Jobs & Family Servs., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010264, 2013-Ohio-2260, ¶ 22

(where a party fails to argue plain error on appeal, an appellate court may decline to

create such an argument).

               Further, Guess did not order a transcript of the August 4, 2022

hearing. As a result, we must presume regularity in the trial proceedings. Story v.

Story, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109850, 2021-Ohio-2439, ¶ 31, citing Knapp v.

Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980) (“When

portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted

from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and, thus, as to those

assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower

court’s proceedings, and affirm.”).

               Guess filed this appeal pro se. Litigants who choose to proceed pro se

are presumed to know the law and correct procedure and are held to the same

standards as other litigants. Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363,

676 N.E.2d 171 (8th Dist.1996). “‘A pro se defendant will be expected to abide by

the rules of evidence and procedure, regardless of his familiarity with them.’” State

v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107748, 2019-Ohio-2335, ¶ 47, quoting
Cleveland v. Lane, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 75151, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5893 (Dec.

9, 1999).

                 Here, Guess, a pro se litigant, failed to (1) object to the magistrate’s

August 4, 2022 decision, (2) argue plain error on appeal, and (3) file a transcript of

the lower court’s proceedings and, accordingly, we overrule Guess’s assignment of

error.

                 Judgment affirmed.

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

         The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

         It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court, domestic relations division, 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 EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR