Court Opinion

ID: 9353388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 19:06:56.106337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:44.319443
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 2023-Ohio-61.]

STATE OF OHIO                     )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )

BRADY STALNAKER                                        C.A. No.     29838

        Appellee

        v.                                             APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                       ENTERED IN THE
HANNAH STALNAKER                                       COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                       COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                      CASE No.   DR-2019-10-2726

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 11, 2023

        TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Hannah Stalnaker, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of

Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court reversed and remands.

                                                  I.

        {¶2}     Hannah Stalnaker (“Wife”) and Brady Stalnaker (“Husband”) were married in

2005. Three children were born of the marriage. In 2012, Husband and Wife entered into a legal

separation agreement in Case No. 2010-03-0859 in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division. The allocation of parental rights and responsibilities as well as the

issue of spousal support were addressed in the legal separation decree.

        {¶3}     On October 8, 2019, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife filed an answer

and counterclaim for divorce wherein she requested the equitable distribution of real property and

other marital assets and debts. The matter was set for trial on August 5, 2020. Counsel for Wife

filed a motion to withdraw approximately two weeks prior to the trial date. New counsel filed a
                                                      2

notice of appearance and a written motion for a continuance on August 4, 2020. The trial court

denied the motion for a continuance and the matter proceeded to trial. Both Husband and Wife

gave testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the marital residence as well as Wife’s

student loans. At the close of testimony, the parties informed the court that they had reached an

agreement. The agreement was read into the record and the trial court asked a number of questions

of the parties. During that exchange, Wife suggested that she was “forced to make uninformed

decisions” after her motion for a continuance was denied. At that point, the trial court brought the

discussion to a close and indicated that it was inclined to write a decision. The trial court

subsequently issued a divorce decree that addressed the issues pertaining to the marital residence

and the outstanding student loans. The trial court also set forth its reasoning for denying the motion

for a continuance.

        {¶4}       On appeal, Wife raises three assignments of error. Husband has not filed an

appellate brief.

                                                     II.

                                     ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

        THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
        CONTINUANCE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

        {¶5}       In her first assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion

in denying her motion for a continuance. This Court agrees.

        {¶6}       An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a continuance for

an abuse of discretion. State v. Acoria, 129 Ohio App.3d 376, 378 (9th Dist.1998); Swedlow v.

Riegler, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26710, 2013-Ohio-5562, ¶ 9. An abuse of discretion means more

than an error of judgment; it implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
                                                   3

        {¶7}    “In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion

for a continuance, this Court must ‘apply a balancing test, weighing the trial court’s interest in

controlling its own docket, including facilitating the efficient dispensation of justice, versus the

potential prejudice to the moving party.’” State v. Dawalt, 9th Dist. Medina No. 06CA0059-M,

2007-Ohio-2438, ¶ 10, quoting Burton v. Burton, 132 Ohio App.3d 473, 476 (3d Dist.1999). The

Supreme Court of Ohio has observed that

        [i]n evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should [consider] the length of
        the delay requested; whether other continuances have been requested and received;
        the inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the court; whether
        the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or
        contrived; whether the [movant] contributed to the circumstance which gives rise
        to the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, depending on the unique
        facts of each case.

State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67-68 (1981).

        {¶8}    “‘There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so

arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in

every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.’”

Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d at 67, quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964).

        {¶9}    As noted above, Wife obtained new counsel prior to trial and filed a written motion

for a continuance. In support of the motion, new counsel indicated that she was recently retained

and that she needed additional time to review discovery. New counsel further stressed that she

had a scheduling conflict as she was set to appear for a hearing in a different case on the same day

that trial was set to commence. New counsel also noted that no prior continuances had been

granted.

        {¶10} As noted above, the trial court set forth its reasons for denying the motion for a

continuance in the divorce decree. After briefly outlining the procedural history in the case, the
                                                     4

trial court noted that neither party had complied with orders pertaining to discovery or the filing

of trial briefs and exhibits. The trial court further observed that the case had been pending for ten

months and that the August 5, 2020 trial date had been set on the docket since April 13, 2020. The

trial court found that Wife’s motion for a continuance was untimely as it was filed the day before

the scheduled trial date.1 With respect to new counsel’s scheduling conflict, the trial court simply

found that “[t]he instant [case] was filed first.”

        {¶11} In light of this Court’s careful review of the record, we are compelled to conclude

that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wife’s motion for a continuance. Wife obtained

new counsel shortly before trial and requested additional time to prepare and review discovery.

New counsel also informed the trial court of a scheduling conflict. There had been no continuances

of the trial date prior to the filing of Wife’s motion. There is nothing in the record suggesting that

Husband objected to the continuance, nor is there evidence that a continuance would have

prejudiced Husband. A review of the trial transcript reveals that, at the outset of her testimony,

Wife expressed concern that the matter was going forward because her attorney had not had

adequate time to prepare. With respect to new counsel’s scheduling conflict, the trial court’s

observation that the instant matter was “filed first[]” does not negate the reality that new counsel

faced an obstacle in getting up to speed on the case in a very short period of time. Furthermore,

while the trial court seemingly articulated its dissatisfaction with the fact that the pretrial

proceedings had been disjointed, we are mindful that pretrial in this matter coincided with the onset

of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a disruptive force in court proceedings across the state.

        1
          In support of this finding, the trial court highlighted Wife’s testimony at trial that she
retained new counsel prior to the time that former counsel filed his motion to withdraw on July 22,
2020.
                                                5

Under these circumstances, the trial court’s denial of the motion for a continuance constituted an

abuse of discretion.

       {¶12} Wife’s first assignment of error is sustained.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER ALLOCATING STUDENT LOAN DEBT TO
       APPELLANT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

       THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER ALLOCATING THE MARITAL RESIDENCE
       TO APPELLEE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

       {¶13} In her second assignment of error, Wife maintains that the trial court abused its

discretion by the manner in which it allocated student loan debt. In her third assignment of error,

Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the marital home to Husband.

As this Court’s resolution of Wife’s first assignment of error is dispositive of this appeal, we

decline to address the second and third assignments of error as they have been rendered moot.

App.R. 12 (A)(1)(c).

                                               III.

       {¶14} Wife’s first assignment of error is sustained. This Court declines to address Wife’s

second and third assignments of error as they have been rendered moot. The judgment of the

Summit Count Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is reversed and the cause

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

                                                                              Judgment reversed,
                                                                             and cause remanded.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
                                                 6

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellee.

                                                     THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
                                                     FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

SUSAN J. LAX, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

THOMAS LOCASCIO, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.